Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
futurevuls-mcp

futurevuls-mcp

by keides2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

futurevuls_get_cve_detail

Retrieve detailed information about a specific CVE by providing its CVE ID, with optional group filtering for vulnerability management.

Instructions

特定のCVEの詳細情報を取得

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cve_id": "<cve_id>"
    },
    "name": "futurevuls_get_cve_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYesCVE ID (例: CVE-2021-44228)
groupNo対象グループ名 (ERMS, DBIPS, GPF等)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool 'gets details' without disclosing whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This lack of transparency leaves the agent uninformed about side effects or constraints.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly expanded to include additional context without harming conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the type of information returned (e.g., severity, description, references). It does not, making it incomplete for an agent to understand what 'details' means.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information for a specific CVE, using a specific verb ('取得') and resource ('CVEの詳細情報'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'futurevuls_get_cves' (which lists CVEs) and 'futurevuls_search_critical_cves' (which searches for critical ones).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions like 'use this for a single CVE; for bulk operations use futurevuls_get_cves'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools