Apify Public Data & Leads

NVD CVE and CISA KEV Vulnerability Intelligence

cve_vulnerability_intelligence

Read-only

Search NIST NVD for vulnerabilities, enrich with CISA known exploited status, CVSS, CWE, affected CPEs, and references to prioritize patches and identify active exploitation.

Instructions

Search NIST NVD vulnerabilities and enrich every CVE with CISA Known Exploited Vulnerability status, remediation deadlines, ransomware use, CVSS, CWE, affected CPEs, and references.

Behavioral Transparency:

Execution: Network call executed synchronously in the cloud via Apify Actor 'captainhandsome/nvd-cisa-vulnerability-intelligence'.
Side Effects: Reads public sources and creates a billed Actor run and dataset on your Apify account.
Authentication: Requires APIFY_TOKEN environment variable; no NVD or CISA credential is required.
Latency & Limits: Typical exact and keyword runs take 5-30 seconds; NVD rate limits can slow large filtered jobs; output is capped by max_results.

Usage Guidelines:

When to use: Use for CVE research, vulnerability triage, patch prioritization, and identifying active exploitation.
When NOT to use: Do not use as a network scanner or as proof that a particular deployed asset is vulnerable.
Named alternatives: Use 'tech_stack_detector' to identify public website technologies before researching relevant CVEs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Keyword, vendor, product, or phrase to search in NVD.
`cve_id`	No	Exact CVE ID; overrides query when supplied.
`max_cpes`	No	Maximum affected CPE criteria retained per CVE.
`severity`	No	Optional CVSS v3 severity filter.
`max_results`	No	Maximum vulnerability records to return.
`published_end`	No	Optional NVD end timestamp; supply with published_start.
`max_references`	No	Maximum reference URLs retained per CVE.
`published_start`	No	Optional NVD start timestamp; supply with published_end.
`known_exploited_only`	No	Return only CVEs currently in CISA KEV.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run`	No
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.0Sep 15, 2026
Removedv1.1.0Sep 15, 2026
Addedv1.0.13Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description goes further by disclosing that execution creates a billed Apify Actor run and dataset, requires APIFY_TOKEN, needs no NVD/CISA credentials, and can take 5-30 seconds with NVD rate limits. These operational side effects and constraints are valuable beyond the annotations and show no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is organized under clear headings, front-loads the core purpose, and groups behavioral and usage details logically. Every sentence contributes operational, safety, or routing information with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, authentication, side effects, latency, rate limits, output limits, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and a named sibling alternative. With the output schema present and 100% parameter coverage in the input schema, no critical guidance for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds only general operational context like output capping and typical run durations, not new per-parameter semantics. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states the operation ('Search'), the resource ('NIST NVD'), and the enrichment set ('CISA Known Exploited Vulnerability status, remediation deadlines, ransomware use, CVSS, CWE, affected CPEs, and references'). This clearly distinguishes it as a vulnerability-intelligence lookup rather than a generic web search or scanner, and the title reinforces the exact scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly lists when to use the tool (CVE research, vulnerability triage, patch prioritization, identifying active exploitation), when NOT to use it (as a network scanner or proof of asset vulnerability), and names a specific alternative (tech_stack_detector). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server