cybersecurity-vuln-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct, with slight overlap between vuln_kev_due_soon and vuln_kev_latest (both KEV-focused but different filters) and between vuln_trending and vuln_epss_top (different criteria for prioritizing CVEs). Descriptions clarify differences.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the pattern vuln_<descriptive_name>, using underscores and consistent noun/verb structure. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools cover the core vulnerability intelligence domain without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers search, lookup, trending, exploitation probability, and KEV monitoring comprehensively. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for patch or fix version information, but overall the set is complete for its informational purpose.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool retrieves top-scoring CVEs but does not explain the role of threshold and limit parameters, or describe the output format. Important behavioral aspects like pagination or sorting order are omitted.
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, efficient sentence. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it feel incomplete rather than concise.
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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value structure, how the threshold and limit interact, or typical usage. A more complete description would include the output format and the relationship between parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both 'threshold' and 'limit' parameters, but the context indicates only 50% schema description coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what is in the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 'Get CVEs with highest EPSS exploitation probability scores' clearly indicates the tool returns top CVEs ranked by EPSS score. It is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like vuln_search or vuln_lookup_cve. However, it could be more explicit about the descending order and the inclusion of parameters.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as vuln_search or vuln_by_vendor. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior but only states the basic function. It omits details on rate limits, data freshness, response structure, or whether the operation is read-only.
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, concise sentence that conveys the main purpose without extraneous details. However, it could be expanded slightly for clarity without losing 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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination, or edge cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no value beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is low (33%), but the description doesn't explain parameter meanings or relationships, such as how 'days' and 'severity' interact.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'recently published critical/high severity CVEs from the NVD', effectively conveying the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from siblings like vuln_search. However, it inaccurately restricts severity to critical/high when the parameter allows all levels.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vuln_by_vendor, vuln_search). The description does not specify contexts where this tool is preferred or when to avoid it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions cross-referencing with KEV but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, error handling, or whether results are limited to KEV entries.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words.
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?
The description is too brief given 3 parameters and no output schema. Missing details on required fields, optional parameter purpose, return format, and cross-reference behavior.
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 coverage is 67% (vendor and product described, limit not). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; limit parameter remains undocumented. Baseline 3 as schema covers most.
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 searches for CVEs by vendor/product and cross-references with CISA KEV, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vuln_search or vuln_lookup_cve.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or excluded use cases. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description describes a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, result ordering, pagination, or behavior when no results are found. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. However, it may be too concise, sacrificing completeness. Structure is fine.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and partial schema coverage, the description is insufficient. Missing information on return format, sorting, or interpretation of 'upcoming remediation deadlines'. Incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (days parameter has description, limit does not). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how 'days' relates to 'due soon' or the role of 'limit'. No enrichment provided.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves CISA KEV vulnerabilities with upcoming remediation deadlines. It uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'CISA KEV vulnerabilities', distinguishing it from siblings like vuln_kev_latest which focuses on latest entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for upcoming deadlines but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vuln_kev_latest or other sister tools. No when-not-to-use or contextual prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description does not explicitly state the tool's read-only nature or any side effects. It merely describes the search functionality, leaving behavioral assumptions to the agent.
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 a single 12-word sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with no redundant information.
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?
The description does not mention return format, pagination, or how results are ordered. With no output schema, this information is critical for an agent to understand how to use the output.
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?
The schema has 83% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions three parameters (keyword, severity, date range) without adding new meaning beyond the 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 searches the NIST NVD for CVEs by keyword, severity, and date range. It distinguishes itself from siblings like vuln_by_vendor (vendor-specific) and vuln_lookup_cve (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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like vuln_epss_top or vuln_kev_due_soon. The description lacks any context about alternatives or prerequisites.
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 correctly indicates a read operation returning vulnerability entries, but lacks details on output format, pagination, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
A single, concise sentence of 7 words contains all essential information without fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the description provides a basic understanding. However, it does not explain the return format or pagination behavior (implied by 'limit'), and lacks annotation context. Given the absence of output schema, more detail would help, but the description is minimally functional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'days' has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema's 'Look back N days' for 'days' and leaves 'limit' with no semantic explanation. No extra meaning is provided to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 'Get recently added CISA KEV entries', specifying the verb (Get), resource (CISA KEV entries), and temporal scope (recently added). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vuln_by_vendor (vendor-specific) or vuln_epss_top (EPSS ranking).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies usage for recent KEV entries, it does not mention exclusions or recommend sibling tools for other cases (e.g., vuln_lookup_cve for specific CVEs).
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates data from NVD, CISA KEV, EPSS, and MITRE ATT&CK, indicating a read-only operation. Missing details like rate limits or response format, but the description is still informative.
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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the tool's capabilities without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the purpose 'Look up a CVE by ID' and then enumerates sources.
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 of aggregating multiple intelligence sources, the description covers the key outputs but doesn't detail return structure or potential pagination. Since output schema is absent, a slightly more detailed description of the return format would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description and pattern for the cveId parameter. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 looks up a CVE by ID and returns enriched intelligence from multiple sources (NVD, CISA KEV, EPSS, MITRE ATT&CK). It distinguishes from siblings like vuln_search or vuln_by_vendor by focusing on a single CVE identifier.
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 explicitly says 'Look up a CVE by ID', providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools, but the context is strong enough.
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:

[![gov-mcp-servers MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martc03/gov-mcp-servers/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martc03/gov-mcp-servers)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gov-mcp-servers MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martc03/gov-mcp-servers/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martc03/gov-mcp-servers)

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/martc03/gov-mcp-servers'

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