Summarize active CVE counts by severity and show when the EchelonGraph CVE Pulse feed was last updated, so you can gauge current exposure at a glance.
Summary of EchelonGraph's CVE Pulse feed: total active CVEs and counts by severity (critical/high/medium/low/none), plus when the feed was last updated. The feed is polled from its sources on a schedule, so this is the state as of that update.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the feed is polled on a schedule and reflects state as of the last update (a freshness/staleness caveat), but omits auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the summary can be stale relative to live source data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero filler. The core content of the summary is front-loaded, and the freshness caveat follows as a short qualifier.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description must explain the return shape itself — and it does, listing the severity buckets and last-updated timestamp. Only the freshness semantics (how often polled, how stale it can get) remain slightly under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline credit applies. No parameter-level gaps exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific resource (EchelonGraph's CVE Pulse feed) and enumerates exactly what the result contains: total active CVEs, counts by severity buckets, and last-update time. This aggregate-summary identity is clearly distinguishable from retrieval siblings like get_cve and search_cves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is for a high-level overview rather than fetching individual CVEs, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_cve/search_cves/exposure_radar nor sets any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.