cvss_v31_calculatorValidate a CVSS v3.1 base vector and calculate its score, rating, impact, and exploitability locally.
Validate a CVSS v3.1 base vector and calculate its score, rating, impact, and exploitability locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vector | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rating | Yes | ||
| vector | Yes | ||
| base_score | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is covered. The description's 'locally' largely restates openWorldHint=false, but 'Validate' adds the useful behavioral signal that malformed vectors are rejected rather than silently scored. No detail on error behavior beyond that.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause carries information (validation, outputs, local execution). Nothing redundant or padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description plus annotations cover the core contract for a single-argument pure function. The remaining gap is the input vector format/validation rules, which the agent must infer.
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 coverage is 0% — the single 'vector' parameter is an undocumented 1-200 char string. The description compensates by identifying it as a 'CVSS v3.1 base vector', which tells the agent the expected format family, but gives no example syntax or mention of accepted prefixes/ordering.
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?
Names a specific verb pair (validate, calculate) and a precise resource (CVSS v3.1 base vector) plus the outputs produced (score, rating, impact, exploitability). No sibling tool in the list performs scoring math, so the agent can distinguish this from the scanning/reporting tools without opening the schema.
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 purpose implies when to use it (turning a given vector into a score during triage/reporting), and 'locally' signals no external lookup is needed. However, it never states when NOT to use it, whether it accepts only base metrics versus temporal/environmental vectors, or how it relates to finding/report tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.