cybersecurity-vuln-mcp

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the data source (NVD) and filtering logic (temporal/severity), but fails to describe the return format, pagination behavior, or response structure that agents need to handle results.

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, this brevity leaves critical gaps; slightly more detail would better serve agent decision-making.

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?

Adequate for basic tool selection but incomplete given constraints: no output schema exists, no annotations provided, yet description doesn't compensate by explaining return values, error conditions, or parameter interactions (e.g., severity filter with day ranges).

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 low at 33% (only 'days' described in schema). Description adds context for 'severity' ('critical/high severity') and implies 'days' ('recently published'), but completely omits the 'limit' parameter, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 specific verb (Get), resource (CVEs from NVD), and scope (recently published, critical/high severity). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like vuln_search or vuln_lookup_cve, which could cause selection ambiguity.

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?

Implies usage for monitoring recent critical vulnerabilities via 'recently published,' but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions (e.g., not for historical deep searches), and no alternative recommendations.

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