Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brdatahub-intelligence

brdatahub-intelligence

Official
by brdatahub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

check_cisa_epss_active_cyber_exploits

Retrieve actively exploited CVEs from CISA KEV with EPSS 30-day probability and ransomware flags to prioritize vulnerability triage; filter by vendor or ransomware-only.

Instructions

Fetch actively exploited CVEs from US CISA KEV enriched with FIRST.org 30-day EPSS probability & ransomware flags.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_cisa_epss_active_cyber_exploits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendorFilterNo
onlyRansomwareNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the enrichment pipeline and the 30-day EPSS scoring window, which are useful behavioral facts beyond the name. It omits anything about result volume, ordering, freshness of the KEV snapshot, rate limits, or what a returned record looks like.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and data source, with the enrichment detail following. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, the description adequately identifies the dataset but leaves both filters unexplained and says nothing about the shape or size of the response. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for two parameters. 'ransomware flags' loosely gestures at the onlyRansomware toggle but never confirms the mapping, and vendorFilter is completely unaddressed — no indication whether it is exact match, substring, or a vendor/technology identifier. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and a precisely scoped resource ('actively exploited CVEs') and names both upstream sources (US CISA KEV, FIRST.org EPSS). The domain is unmistakable and no sibling tool touches threat intelligence, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool, what a vendorFilter is good for, or when to skip it in favor of a broader vulnerability source. Scope is implied only by the phrase 'actively exploited', with no explicit context or exclusions.

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