Skip to main content
Glama
derrickjudge

nvd-mcp

by derrickjudge
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: lookup a specific CVE, search by keyword, and aggregate risk for multiple CVEs. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: lookup_cve, search_cves, summarize_risk.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is slightly on the low side but appropriate for a focused NVD query and risk assessment domain. Each tool is essential.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the full workflow: finding CVEs (search), getting details (lookup), and summarizing risk (summarize). No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 6 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description fully bears responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search for CVEs by product name or keyword' without revealing any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

    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 that communicates the core functionality without any redundant or extraneous information.

    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?

    While the description covers the basic purpose and the schema documents parameters, it lacks additional context like search scoping, result ordering, or explanation of CVEs. An output schema exists, so return value details are assumed covered.

    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 has 100% coverage, with both parameters (keyword and max_results) described. The description's keyword mention adds no new meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Search for CVEs by product name or keyword.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('CVEs') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lookup_cve' (likely single CVE lookup) and 'summarize_risk' (risk summary).

    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 for searching CVEs but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'look up full details' but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires authentication. It also fails to mention any potential errors or limits. With an output schema present, the description could still benefit from clarifying what 'full details' entails.

    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 that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without any waste.

    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?

    Given that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple single-CVE lookup tool, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could mention what happens if the CVE is not found.

    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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a description and example value. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 action ('look up full details') and the resource ('a specific CVE by ID'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_cves' (which searches) and 'summarize_risk' (which summarizes).

    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 the tool is for looking up a single CVE by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical use cases. The guidance is only implied by the sibling names.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Discloses key behavior: fetches from NVD, computes weighted composite score, returns severity breakdown and remediation guidance. Includes the formula and score range. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden, and it provides substantial behavioral details.

    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?

    Highly concise with no filler. Three short sentences: purpose, process, formula. Front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence 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?

    With an output schema present, the description adequately covers purpose and process. It mentions expected output (severity breakdown, remediation guidance). Lacks detail on error handling or performance, but given simplicity and single parameter, it is fairly complete.

    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 coverage is 100% with clear description and example for cve_ids. Description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., mentions 'list of CVE IDs' but schema already specifies that). Baseline score applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

    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?

    Clearly states 'Aggregate a risk summary for a list of CVE IDs' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings lookup_cve (single CVE detail) and search_cves (search) by focusing on multiple CVEs and aggregation.

    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?

    Implies usage when a list of CVEs is present and an aggregate risk is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives to siblings. The description lacks exclusion criteria or comparison with similar tools.

    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

nvd-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

nvd-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/derrickjudge/nvd-mcp'

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