Skip to main content
Glama
cliwant

mcp-sam-gov

by cliwant

cisa_kev_lookup

Read-only

Filter the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog by CVE, vendor, product, ransomware use, or due date to check mandatory-remediation status under BOD 22-01.

Instructions

Filter the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog standalone (keyless; www.cisa.gov feed, cached) — the mandatory-remediation list carrying BINDING due-dates under BOD 22-01 / its 2026 successor BOD 26-04. Works even when NVD is rate-limited (a separate host, no key). Filters (all optional, AND-combined, client-side): cveId (exact KEV membership check), vendorProject/product (case-insensitive substring), ransomwareOnly (knownRansomwareCampaignUse === 'Known'), addedSince/dueBefore (ISO YYYY-MM-DD); limit (≤1000, def 100), offset. Returns { catalogVersion, dateReleased, count, found?, matches:[{ cveID, vendorProject, product, vulnerabilityName, dateAdded, dueDate, knownRansomwareCampaignUse, shortDescription, requiredAction, cwes, nvdUrl }] } + honest _meta. ★HONESTY: knownRansomwareCampaignUse and requiredAction are surfaced VERBATIM (never defaulted); dueDate is the CISA-mandated remediation deadline. A cveId NOT in the catalog ⇒ found:false — but the not-in-KEV≠safe caveat rides on EVERY response: KEV is a CURATED SUBSET of confirmed in-the-wild exploitation, so absence means CISA has not catalogued it, NOT that the component is unexploited/safe. A catalog download failure / floor-fail / count-drift THROWS (a truncated/near-empty catalog must never read as 'nothing is exploited') — never a fake-empty. The snapshot freshness (catalogVersion + release date + cache age) is disclosed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cveIdNoExact CVE identifier CVE-YYYY-NNNN to check for KEV membership. A miss returns found:false + the not-in-KEV≠safe caveat (absence is NOT a safety clearance).
limitNoMax matches returned (default 100, max 1000).
offsetNoZero-based page offset (default 0).
productNoCase-insensitive substring filter on the product (e.g. 'Log4j', 'Exchange Server').
dueBeforeNoKeep only entries with dueDate < this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) — the CISA-mandated remediation deadline.
addedSinceNoKeep only entries with dateAdded >= this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD).
vendorProjectNoCase-insensitive substring filter on the vendor/project (e.g. 'Microsoft', 'Apache').
ransomwareOnlyNoWhen true, keep only entries with knownRansomwareCampaignUse === 'Known'.
Behavior5/5

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

The description extensively discloses behavior beyond annotations: caching, honesty in field values, failure mode (throws on catalog errors, no fake-empty), and the persistent caveat. This adds significant value beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose (multiple paragraphs with details about failure modes and honesty). While informative, it could be more concise. The key purpose is front-loaded, but the length exceeds what is strictly necessary for typical usage.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is remarkably complete given the tool's complexity: it details all 8 optional parameters, describes the response structure (including fields and caveat), failure modes, and the open-world assumption. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful elaboration: explains cveId returns found:false with caveat, dueBefore as CISA deadline, and other filters' behavior. This provides extra clarity beyond the schema alone.

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 filters the CISA KEV catalog, distinguishing it from general CVE lookups. It specifies the resource (KEV catalog), action (filter), and unique characteristics (keyless, cached, separate host from NVD).

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 provides explicit context: use when checking KEV membership, works without NVD key, and includes the critical caveat that absence from KEV does not imply safety. It doesn't list alternative tools but implies full CVEs via sibling names.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/cliwant/mcp-sam-gov'

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