Mallory MCP Server

Official

by malloryai

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes focused on different aspects of threat intelligence (vulnerabilities, threat actors, exploitations), but there is some overlap between 'get_exploitation' and 'get_vulnerability_exploitations' that could cause confusion. The descriptions help clarify that one is for a specific exploitation incident and the other is for exploitations of a specific vulnerability, but the naming doesn't make this distinction clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout. The naming convention is predictable with 'get_' for retrieving specific items, 'list_' for collections, and 'find_' for search operations, creating a coherent naming scheme.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, this server is well-scoped for a threat intelligence domain. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in vulnerability analysis, threat actor intelligence, and exploitation tracking, providing comprehensive coverage without being overwhelming.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for threat intelligence operations with clear CRUD-like patterns: find/get vulnerabilities, get vulnerability configurations/detection signatures/exploitations, list/get threat actors, and get/list exploitations. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain of vulnerability and threat actor intelligence.
Average 4.5/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a retrieval function for detailed information, which implies it's a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or error behaviors. It adds some context about what data is returned, but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits like side effects or performance characteristics.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter and return value sections. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but could be slightly more concise by integrating some details more tightly, as it uses multiple sentences that are all relevant but not minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a single-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and return value structure. However, it lacks explicit behavioral disclosures like error handling or authentication needs, which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'identifier', including its type (str), purpose (unique UUID of the exploitation to retrieve), and an example format ('123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000'), which adds significant value beyond the basic schema.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific exploitation' and 'retrieves detailed information about a specific exploitation incident using its unique identifier.' It specifies the verb ('get', 'retrieve') and resource ('exploitation', 'exploitation incident'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_exploitations' or 'get_vulnerability_exploitations', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use it: 'Use this to look up exploitation data when you want to know if a vulnerability has been exploited in the wild, and who detected the exploitation.' It implies usage for specific exploitation incidents, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_exploitations', so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves data (implying read-only, non-destructive) and mentions filtering/sorting options, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior beyond offset/limit. It adds some context (e.g., data helps identify specific insights) but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits for a tool with 4 parameters.
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 well-structured with a purpose statement, usage context, bulleted insights, and detailed parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. However, the bulleted list could be more concise, and some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'exploitation' in insights).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining inputs and returns. It details parameter semantics and provides a clear return structure with field examples. However, it lacks output schema details like data types or nested objects, and doesn't address error cases or behavioral constraints, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 4 parameters: offset (items to skip), limit (max items, with min and default noted), sort (fields to sort by), and order (sort direction). It includes default values, constraints (e.g., 'Minimum value is 1'), and clarifies API defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get exploitation data' and specifies it retrieves 'a list of exploitation incidents with filtering and sorting options.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_exploitation' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple records. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_vulnerability_exploitations' or 'list_threat_actors' in terms of scope or focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use it: 'when you want to know if vulnerabilities have been exploited in the wild, and who detected the exploitations.' It also lists specific use cases (e.g., identifying recent exploitations, detection signatures). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_vulnerability_exploitations' for a different scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well. It explains the pagination behavior (offset/limit), sorting capabilities, filtering logic with prefix rules, and provides detailed return structure. The only minor gap is not mentioning rate limits or authentication requirements.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage scenarios, args, returns) and efficiently conveys necessary information. While comprehensive, it maintains good information density with minimal redundancy. The only minor improvement would be slightly tighter phrasing in the usage scenarios section.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, detailed parameter semantics, and comprehensive return value documentation, making this fully self-contained for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation. It explains all 5 parameters in detail, including filter prefixes (cve:, uuid:, desc:), offset/limit pagination logic, sort field options, and order direction. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get vulnerabilities' and 'search or browse multiple vulnerabilities', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_vulnerability' (singular vs plural), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one over the other.
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 provides excellent usage guidelines with five specific scenarios when to use this tool, including discovering recent vulnerabilities, searching by keywords, finding technology-specific vulnerabilities, creating reports, and looking for high-severity vulnerabilities. This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns (detection signatures with technical indicators) and hints at its read-only nature by using 'get' and focusing on retrieval. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination, which are important for a tool with security data.
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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then usage guidelines, followed by bulleted use cases, and ends with parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and return structure. It explains the return format in detail, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning potential limitations (e.g., data availability, authentication needs) given the security context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'identifier', explaining it as 'The unique CVE ID or UUID of the vulnerability to retrieve' with example formats. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, fully documenting the parameter's purpose and format.
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's purpose: 'Get detection signatures for a specific vulnerability.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('detection signatures'), and scope ('for a specific vulnerability'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_vulnerability' or 'get_vulnerability_configurations' that focus on different aspects of vulnerability data.
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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this tool when you need to understand how a specific vulnerability can be detected in your environment.' It provides specific use cases (e.g., building detection rules, verifying detection capabilities) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on detection signatures rather than configurations, exploitations, or threat actors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by describing the tool as a read operation ('Get'), specifying the return format (Dict[str, Any]), and detailing the structure of returned data including timestamps and mentions. It could improve by mentioning potential errors (e.g., if identifier not found) or rate limits, but it provides substantial behavioral context.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, args, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It could be slightly more concise by reducing some detail in the returns section, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context by detailing the return structure and use cases. It could improve by explicitly mentioning what happens with invalid identifiers or if no data is found, but it covers most aspects needed for a single-parameter read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by clearly explaining the 'identifier' parameter as accepting either UUID or Name, providing examples of both formats, and specifying it's for retrieving a specific threat actor. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.
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's purpose as 'Get threat actor by identifier' and specifies it provides 'detailed intelligence about a specific threat actor or advanced persistent threat (APT) group.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_threat_actors' by focusing on retrieving detailed information for a single actor rather than listing multiple.
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 states 'Use this tool when you need detailed intelligence about a specific threat actor' and provides five specific use cases (e.g., understanding TTPs, researching security incidents). It implicitly distinguishes from 'list_threat_actors' by focusing on single-actor details versus listing, and from other siblings like vulnerability tools by focusing on threat actors specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining what the tool returns (detailed vulnerability data) and its practical applications. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context about the type and structure of information returned.
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?
Well-structured with purpose statement, usage guidelines, and detailed return documentation. The return value section is comprehensive but lengthy; however, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise in the returns section but overall efficient.
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?
For a single-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, parameter explanation, and exhaustive documentation of return values. The detailed return field descriptions effectively substitute for a missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (parameter 'cve' has no description in schema), but the description fully compensates by clearly explaining the parameter: 'cve (str): The CVE to search for'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema type definition.
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's purpose: 'Find a vulnerability by CVE identifier' with specific details about what information is retrieved (severity scores, description, exploitation status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_vulnerabilities' (likely a list operation) by focusing on a single CVE lookup.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when you need detailed information about a specific vulnerability' and provides concrete use cases (threat assessment, prioritizing patching, understanding technical details). It differentiates from siblings by specifying this is for detailed info on a single CVE, not lists or other related data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get' and 'monitor'), returns paginated results with offset/limit parameters, includes sorting options, and provides detailed return data structure. It also mentions the tool's value for 'timely intelligence' and 'staying current,' though it doesn't specify rate limits or authentication requirements.
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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidelines, parameter documentation, and return value explanation. While comprehensive (necessary given the lack of annotations and output schema), it's efficiently organized with bullet points for scenarios and a detailed Returns section. Some sentences could be more concise, but overall it's appropriately sized for the complexity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and a detailed return structure. The Returns section documents all fields in the response dictionary, compensating for the missing output schema. This makes the tool fully understandable to an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage (no descriptions in the input schema), the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation. It explains all four parameters (offset, limit, sort, order) with their purposes, default values, constraints (e.g., 'Minimum value is 1'), and allowed values (e.g., sort fields and order options). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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's purpose as 'Get mentioned threat actors' and elaborates that it returns 'actual mentions with context from recent intelligence sources.' It explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'list_threat_actors()' which returns 'basic threat actor records,' providing specific differentiation. The description uses precise verbs like 'monitor,' 'track,' and 'obtain' to clarify the action.
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 provides explicit usage guidelines with 'Use this tool when you need to monitor recent threat actor activities mentioned in threat intelligence sources.' It lists five specific scenarios (e.g., 'Tracking emerging threats') and clearly contrasts it with 'list_threat_actors()' as an alternative for basic records. This gives comprehensive guidance on when to use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves configuration data following CPE standards, returns a detailed dictionary structure with specific fields, and clarifies that an empty list indicates no configuration info is available. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers core operational aspects well.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, return format). It's appropriately detailed for a tool with rich output, though slightly lengthy. Every sentence adds value, such as the use cases and CPE standard mention, with no redundant information.
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?
Given the complexity (1 parameter but detailed output) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and a comprehensive return structure with field explanations. The note about empty lists handling edge cases adds robustness, making it sufficient for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter semantics: explains the 'identifier' parameter as 'The unique CVE ID or UUID of the vulnerability to retrieve', gives example formats ('CVE-2023-1234' or UUID), and clarifies its purpose. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get configuration information') and resources ('for a specific vulnerability'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_vulnerabilities' (which likely lists vulnerabilities) or 'get_vulnerability_detection_signatures' (which focuses on detection). It explicitly explains what configuration information entails (affected systems, products, versions).
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this tool when you need to understand exactly which systems, products, or versions are affected by a vulnerability') and lists five specific use cases (e.g., determining if versions are vulnerable, planning remediation). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on configuration details rather than general vulnerability info or exploitation data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (retrieves exploitation records), the return format (list of records with detailed fields), and edge cases (empty list indicates no known exploitation). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides substantial context beyond basic function.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, bullet-pointed benefits, and detailed parameter/return sections. While comprehensive, it could be more front-loaded; the core function is stated upfront, but the bullet points, though useful, add length. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieves detailed exploitation data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, parameter details, and a full breakdown of return values, making it self-sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by clearly explaining the 'identifier' parameter: its purpose (CVE ID or UUID of the vulnerability), format examples ('CVE-2023-1234' or UUID), and that it's required. This adds essential meaning not present in the bare schema.
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's purpose with specific verb ('Get exploitation data') and resource ('for a specific vulnerability'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_vulnerability_configurations' or 'list_exploitations'. It explicitly mentions what the tool retrieves (exploitation data) and for what (a specific vulnerability), making its function unambiguous.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this tool when you need to determine if a vulnerability has been actively exploited in the wild.' It lists specific use cases (risk assessment, incident response, prioritization) and contrasts with siblings by focusing on exploitation data for a single vulnerability, unlike 'list_exploitations' which might list multiple or 'get_vulnerability_configurations' which handles different data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior including pagination (offset/limit), filtering capabilities, sorting options, and return format. It also clarifies that this returns summary information rather than detailed intelligence. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about rate limits or authentication requirements.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use cases, args, returns, note) and efficiently communicates necessary information. While comprehensive, it maintains focus without unnecessary verbosity. The only minor improvement would be slightly tighter phrasing in the use cases section.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, detailed parameter explanations, return format documentation, and sibling tool differentiation. This gives the agent everything needed to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation. It explains each of the 5 parameters in detail, including default values, valid values for sort and order fields, filter prefix behavior, and practical usage guidance. This adds significant value beyond what the bare schema provides.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('search, browse, or list multiple threat actors') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning get_threat_actor() as the alternative for detailed information. It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining the scope and functionality.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to search, browse, or list multiple threat actors') and when not to use it (directing users to get_threat_actor() for detailed information). It includes specific use cases and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool for detailed lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mallorymcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/malloryai/mallorymcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/malloryai/mallorymcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mallorymcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/malloryai/mallorymcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/malloryai/mallorymcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/malloryai/mallorymcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server