Retrieve actively exploited and critical CVSS vulnerabilities from the EU ENISA EUVD to identify urgent security risks and prioritize remediation.
Fetch the latest actively exploited (KEV) and critical CVSS vulnerabilities from the EU ENISA European Vulnerability Database (EUVD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | No | exploited |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not state what is returned, how 'latest' is defined, refresh frequency, result limits, or whether authentication is needed. 'Fetch the latest' implies freshness but discloses nothing concrete.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so the purpose lands immediately. It is slightly under-informative rather than verbose, which caps it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented 3-value enum mean the description should explain the feed modes. Instead it covers only part of the parameter space and says nothing about the return payload, leaving the agent under-equipped to call the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'feed' enum parameter (exploited, critical, latest), so the description must compensate. It gestures at 'exploited' and 'critical' but never explains the 'latest' option or the default value of 'exploited', leaving the enum semantics ambiguous.
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 verb (fetch) and resource (vulnerabilities) plus the source database (EU ENISA EUVD), which is clear. However, it names only two of the three feed modes and gives no cue distinguishing it from the sibling euvd_search_vulnerabilities, so an agent still has to inspect the schema to understand the tool's full scope.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this feed tool versus euvd_search_vulnerabilities or euvd_lookup_by_id, and no mention of prerequisites, freshness cadence, or exclusions. The agent gets a purpose statement but no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.