Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SRC Hunter MCP Server

SRC Hunter MCP Server

by mUggles1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

verify-cve

Verify if a target URL is vulnerable to a specific CVE by providing the CVE ID and target. Optionally enable safe mode to avoid disruptive checks.

Instructions

验证特定 CVE 漏洞

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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "cve": "<cve>"
    },
    "name": "verify-cve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cveYesCVE 编号（如 CVE-2021-44228）
targetYes目标 URL
safe_modeNo安全模式

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'verify' actually does, whether it sends exploit payloads, what safe_mode changes, or potential side effects on the target. This is a significant gap for a security verification tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, though slightly under-specified.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more operational context. It does not describe safe_mode behavior, target requirements, expected output, or safety considerations, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly in varied situations.

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 parameters are already documented with names and basic descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly says the tool verifies a specific CVE vulnerability against a target, which states the verb and resource accurately. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling scanning tools like vuln-scan-lite, so it misses the top score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The word 'specific' only implies a narrow use case; it does not explain how to choose among the many sibling tools.

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