Retrieve EPSS exploit prediction scores for one or more CVEs to prioritize vulnerability remediation based on likely exploitation risk.
Get EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) scores for one or more CVEs.
Args: cve_ids: Comma-separated CVE IDs (e.g. CVE-2021-44228,CVE-2022-22965)
| 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; description lacks details on limitations, error handling, rate limits, or output format. Only notes comma-separated format for input, insufficient for full transparency.
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 lines with docstring format, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose. Efficient but could be more structured.
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?
For a simple tool with output schema, description is adequate but lacks error behavior, limit details, or typical use cases. Gaps for a tool with no annotations.
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?
Schema has 0% coverage; description adds that cve_ids is comma-separated, which adds beyond the schema (just string). But no further syntax or constraints given.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves EPSS scores for CVEs, with specific action and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like lookup_cve or check_exploit_availability.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lookup_cve or check_exploit_availability. Description only states what it does, not context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.