Retrieves complete vulnerability metadata, CVSS score, severity, and affected version ranges for a given CVE ID, enabling offline dependency audits and safe upgrade decisions.
Retrieves complete vulnerability metadata, CVSS score, severity, and affected ranges for a specific CVE ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cve_id | Yes | CVE identifier (e.g. CVE-2023-32681) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Retrieves' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the description lists returned fields, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior for missing CVEs.
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 wasted words. Every phrase either identifies the operation or enumerates the key returned data.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (metadata, CVSS, severity, affected ranges). It lacks usage alternatives but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented with an example. The description adds only 'specific CVE ID', which the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('vulnerability metadata, CVSS score, severity, and affected ranges') scoped to 'a specific CVE ID'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_cve by requiring an exact ID, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.
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 phrase 'for a specific CVE ID' implies the tool should be used when the exact identifier is already known, which contrasts with a search tool. However, it provides no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.