Search the EU ENISA European Vulnerability Database by keyword, vendor, product, CVSS/EPSS score range, or exploited status to find matching vulnerabilities.
Search the EU ENISA European Vulnerability Database (EUVD) by keyword, vendor, product, CVSS score range, EPSS score range, or exploited status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| vendor | No | ||
| product | No | ||
| toScore | No | ||
| fromEpss | No | ||
| exploited | No | ||
| fromScore | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, sorting, auth requirements, or what the response contains — for an 8-parameter search tool this is a meaningful gap.
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 that packs in the resource and all filterable dimensions with no wasted words, though it stops short of additional useful context.
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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the 'size' parameter, pagination/result-limit behavior, and return shape. It covers most filter dimensions but omits these, leaving it insufficient for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It helpfully maps 'keyword'→text, 'CVSS score range'→fromScore/toScore, 'EPSS score range'→fromEpss, and 'exploited status'→exploited, but leaves the 'size' parameter entirely unexplained and gives no range units or boundary semantics.
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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('EU ENISA European Vulnerability Database'), plus the filter dimensions. An agent can distinguish it from euvd_lookup_by_id and euvd_licence_info, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling euvd_exploited_and_critical.
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 implied by the enumeration of filter dimensions (keyword, vendor, product, score ranges, exploited status), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance, and no mention of euvd_lookup_by_id for single-record retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.