Compares multiple CVEs by risk score and generates a patch priority ranking so teams can decide which vulnerabilities to fix first.
Compare multiple CVEs by risk score and generate a patch priority ranking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cve_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. This leaves agents uncertain about risks.
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?
Single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with action and resource. No wasted words. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
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?
Tool has one parameter and an output schema (presumably explains return format), so description need not cover returns. However, missing behavioral context (e.g., whether it's a read operation) and usage guidance reduces completeness. Adequate for a simple tool but with gaps.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'multiple CVEs' without specifying format, constraints, or required count. The agent must infer the parameter semantics from the name alone, which is insufficient compensation.
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?
The description uses specific verb 'compare' and resource 'CVEs' with a clear outcome 'generate a patch priority ranking', distinguishing it from siblings like lookup_cve (individual lookup) or search_cves (search).
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?
The description implies use when multiple CVEs need prioritization but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or exclusions. With many sibling tools, lacking differentiation is a missed opportunity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.