Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
darknet-mcp-server

darknet-mcp-server

by badchars
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

otx_cve

Retrieve threat intelligence for a CVE using AlienVault OTX, including related pulses and indicators.

Instructions

Look up threat intelligence for a CVE via AlienVault OTX. Returns related pulses and indicators.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cve": "<cve>"
    },
    "name": "otx_cve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cveYesCVE ID (e.g. CVE-2024-1234)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool returns pulses and indicators, which is useful, but it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., API key), error behavior, or rate limits. It is a read-style operation, but that is not explicitly confirmed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant wording. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the purpose and return content. It lacks details about authentication or limitations, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the stated return items.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents the only parameter 'cve' with a clear format example. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Look up threat intelligence') and resource ('a CVE via AlienVault OTX'). It also specifies the output ('related pulses and indicators'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like otx_ip or otx_domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies the use case but does not mention any exclusions, such as 'for broader CVE info use vulners_search' or 'for domain indicators use otx_domain'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools