Skip to main content
Glama

check_cve

Scan software products for known security vulnerabilities and check their support status by entering product name and version.

Instructions

Scan for known security vulnerabilities and support status

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
productYesSoftware product name
versionYesVersion to check for vulnerabilities
vendorNoSoftware vendor (optional)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the check_cve tool logic. It fetches EOL cycles for the product, finds the matching version, and returns security status based on support field.
    private async handleCheckCVE(args: CVECheckArgs) {
      const { product, version, vendor } = args;
    
      try {
        const response = await this.axiosInstance.get(`/${product}.json`);
        const cycles = response.data as EOLCycle[];
    
        const matchingCycle = cycles.find(cycle => cycle.cycle.startsWith(version));
        if (!matchingCycle) {
          return {
            content: [{
              type: "text",
              text: `Version ${version} not found for ${product}`
            }],
            isError: true
          };
        }
    
        // For now, return basic EOL info since we removed Snyk
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              product,
              version,
              vendor,
              cycle: matchingCycle,
              securityStatus: matchingCycle.support ? 'supported' : 'unsupported'
            }, null, 2)
          }]
        };
      } catch (error) {
        if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
          return {
            content: [{
              type: "text",
              text: `API error: ${error.response?.data?.message ?? error.message}`
            }],
            isError: true
          };
        }
        throw error;
      }
    }
  • TypeScript interface and validation function defining the input schema for the check_cve tool.
    export interface CVECheckArgs {
      product: string;
      version: string;
      vendor?: string;
    }
    
    export function isValidCVECheckArgs(args: any): args is CVECheckArgs {
      return (
        typeof args === "object" &&
        args !== null &&
        "product" in args &&
        typeof args.product === "string" &&
        "version" in args &&
        typeof args.version === "string" &&
        (args.vendor === undefined || typeof args.vendor === "string")
      );
    }
  • src/index.ts:304-328 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListToolsRequestSchema response, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "check_cve",
      description: "Scan for known security vulnerabilities and support status",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          product: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Software product name",
            examples: ["python", "nodejs"]
          },
          version: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Version to check for vulnerabilities",
            examples: ["3.8.0", "16.13.0"]
          },
          vendor: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Software vendor (optional)",
            examples: ["canonical", "redhat"]
          }
        },
        required: ["product", "version"]
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:398-405 (registration)
    Dispatch logic in CallToolRequestSchema handler that validates arguments and calls the check_cve handler.
    case "check_cve":
      if (!isValidCVECheckArgs(args)) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidParams,
          "Invalid CVE check arguments"
        );
      }
      return this.handleCheckCVE(args);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Scan' and 'support status' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a security tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Scan for known security vulnerabilities and support status') with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a security vulnerability tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, error handling, or how results are presented, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in context.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (product, version, vendor) with descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or their impact on results, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Scan for known security vulnerabilities and support status' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('security vulnerabilities and support status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_version' or 'compare_versions' by focusing on vulnerabilities rather than version checking, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_version' or 'get_all_details'. The description implies usage for vulnerability scanning but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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/ducthinh993/mcp-server-endoflife'

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