darknet-mcp-server

vulners_exploit

Search for known exploits using Vulners’ ExploitDB database. Retrieve exploit entries filtered by your query.

Instructions

Search specifically for exploits on Vulners (ExploitDB entries). Filters results to exploit type only.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "vulners_exploit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Exploit search query
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool filters results to exploit type only, which is useful behavioral info. But it does not mention any limitations (e.g., reliance on Vulners' API), output format, or whether it requires authentication. For a search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the filter detail. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers the key functional behavior. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the returned results look like. For a simple search tool, the description is mostly complete, but slightly more detail about the response would round it out.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains 'query' and 'limit' clearly. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters, so it receives the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('exploits on Vulners (ExploitDB entries)'), and explicitly says 'Filters results to exploit type only.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vulners_search, which likely return all vulnerability types.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool: when you specifically want exploits from ExploitDB. The phrase 'Search specifically' and 'Filters results to exploit type only' gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for general vulnerability searches or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server