Skip to main content
Glama
ch201y00n

cve-reference-mcp

by ch201y00n
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Both tools accept a CVE ID, but their purposes are clearly differentiated: one returns a list of references from multiple sources, and the other returns a concise summary of key information. While an agent must read the descriptions to choose correctly, there is no overlap in output type.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent get_cve_<noun> pattern, with 'references' and 'summary' clearly indicating their distinct functions. This is a uniform and predictable naming convention.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set feels thin for a server dedicated to CVE references. However, it is narrowly scoped and may be adequate for the intended use case of gathering references and summaries for CVE guides.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers two core operations: fetching references and providing summaries. Notable gaps exist, such as fetching detailed CVE metadata or searching by keyword, which an agent might expect from a CVE reference tool. Still, the provided tools cover the primary workflow without dead ends.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by noting the summary is based on NVD and EPSS, suggesting a data-source dependency and a lightweight summary nature. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, update frequency, or any side-effect-like behavior, which is a gap for a read operation without annotations.

    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 concise sentence plus a matching parenthetical, efficiently conveying the core purpose and data sources. Every element serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned summary contains and how it differs from the sibling references tool. It fails to describe the expected fields or structure of the output, and it does not mention typical usage scenarios, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.

    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 schema covers the single parameter cve_id with a description ('조회할 CVE ID'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter details such as format, examples, or accepted patterns, so it provides no added meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool returns a summary of core CVE information, with a specific verb (반환합니다) and resource (CVE ID 핵심 정보). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_cve_references, but the 'summary' versus 'references' distinction is implied.

    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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_cve_references or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool aggregates from multiple sources (NVD, CIRCL, OSV, EPSS, GitHub Advisory), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential latency, failure behavior, or output structure nuances, leaving behavioral transparency partial.

    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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and data sources. Every element earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

    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 retrieval tool with three well-documented parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's role in collecting references from multiple sources. Although no output schema exists, the output_format parameter and the mention of a reference list cover the return expectations adequately. A minor gap is the lack of detail on what constitutes a reference, but this is not critical.

    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 schema has 100% parameter descriptions with clear semantics for cve_id, sources, and output_format. The description adds context about the purpose (guide writing) but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 tool's function: it accepts a CVE ID and returns a list of reference materials for writing a CVE guide, sourced from multiple origins. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tool get_cve_summary, which focuses on summaries rather than references.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage context ('CVE 안내서 작성용' - for writing CVE guides) but does not explicitly contrast with get_cve_summary or provide when-to-use guidance. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions, making it minimally adequate but not explicit.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

cve-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

cve-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ch201y00n/cve-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server