단일 MCP 서버에서 4개의 정부 데이터 소스로부터 통합된 취약점 인텔리전스를 제공합니다. CVSS 점수, 활성 악용 상태, 악용 확률 및 ATT&CK 기술이 포함된 강화된 CVE 조회 정보를 한 번의 호출로 확인하세요.
소스 | 제공 내용 | 업데이트 주기 |
NIST NVD 2.0 | CVE 세부 정보, CVSS 점수, 설명, 참조, CWE 분류 | 지속적 |
CISA KEV | 활성 악용 취약점 카탈로그, 수정 기한 | 매일 |
FIRST.org EPSS | 향후 30일 이내 악용 가능성을 예측하는 악용 확률 점수(0-1) | 매일 |
MITRE ATT&CK | CVE에 매핑된 공격자 기술 | 분기별 |
vuln_lookup_cve — 강화된 CVE 조회핵심 기능입니다. 모든 CVE를 조회하고 4개 소스의 인텔리전스를 한 번의 호출로 가져옵니다.
입력: { cveId: "CVE-2021-44228" }
반환: NVD 세부 정보 + CVSS 점수 + KEV 악용 상태 + EPSS 확률 + ATT&CK 기술
vuln_search — CVE 검색키워드, 심각도, 날짜 범위로 NVD를 검색합니다. 선택적으로 활성 악용(KEV) 취약점만 필터링할 수 있습니다.
입력: { keyword: "apache log4j", severity: "CRITICAL", hasKev: true, limit: 20 }
vuln_kev_latest — 최근 악용된 취약점CISA의 알려진 악용 취약점(KEV) 카탈로그에 최근 추가된 취약점을 가져옵니다.
입력: { days: 7, limit: 20 }
vuln_kev_due_soon — 곧 다가오는 수정 기한수정 기한이 임박한 KEV 항목을 가져옵니다. 연방 규정 준수에 필수적입니다.
입력: { days: 14, limit: 20 }
vuln_epss_top — 가장 높은 악용 확률EPSS 머신러닝 모델을 기반으로 향후 30일 이내에 악용될 가능성이 가장 높은 CVE를 가져옵니다.
입력: { threshold: 0.7, limit: 20 }
vuln_trending — 새로 게시된 심각한 CVENVD에서 최근 게시된 높음/심각 수준의 CVE를 가져옵니다.
입력: { days: 3, severity: "CRITICAL", limit: 20 }
vuln_by_vendor — 공급업체 취약점 평가특정 공급업체/제품에 대한 CVE를 검색합니다. CISA KEV와 교차 참조하여 활성 악용 문제를 표시합니다.
입력: { vendor: "microsoft", product: "windows", limit: 20 }
Related MCP server: NVD MCP Server
취약점 분류: CVE를 조회하여 활성 악용 여부, EPSS 점수 및 적용되는 ATT&CK 기술을 즉시 파악
패치 우선순위 지정: KEV 상태와 EPSS 점수를 결합하여 수정 우선순위 결정
규정 준수 추적: 다가오는 CISA KEV 수정 기한 모니터링
위협 인텔리전스: 트렌드 CVE 및 새로 무기화된 취약점 추적
공급업체 위험 평가: 공급업체의 취약점 노출 및 활성 악용 상태 평가
Glama.ai에서 설치하세요.
{
"mcpServers": {
"cybersecurity": {
"url": "https://cybersecurity-vuln-mcp.apify.actor/mcp"
}
}
}{
"mcpServers": {
"cybersecurity": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["path/to/servers/cybersecurity-vuln-mcp/dist/stdio.js"],
"env": {
"NVD_API_KEY": "your-key-here"
}
}
}
}git clone https://github.com/martc03/gov-mcp-servers.git
cd gov-mcp-servers/servers/cybersecurity-vuln-mcp
npm install && npm run build
node dist/stdio.js변수 | 필수 | 설명 |
| 아니요 | 더 높은 속도 제한(50 req/30s vs 5 req/30s)을 위한 NVD API 키. 여기에서 등록하세요. |
데이터 소스 | TTL | 참고 |
NVD CVE 조회 | 1시간 | CVE별 |
CISA KEV 카탈로그 | 2시간 | 전체 카탈로그 |
EPSS 점수 | 24시간 | CVE별 |
ATT&CK 매핑 | 정적 | 서버와 함께 번들 제공 |
프로토콜: stdio를 통한 MCP (Glama/로컬) 또는 Streamable HTTP (Apify)
런타임: Node.js 18+, TypeScript
데이터: 무료 정부 데이터 소스에 대한 직접 API 호출, 비용 없음
캐싱: 구성 가능한 TTL을 갖춘 인메모리 방식
이 저장소에는 미국 정부 데이터를 위한 13개의 MCP 서버가 포함되어 있습니다. 자세한 내용은 각 서버의 README를 참조하세요.
서버 | 도구 | 데이터 소스 |
4 | NHTSA 리콜, FDA 리콜 | |
4 | FEMA 재난, NOAA 날씨, USGS 지진 | |
4 | SEC EDGAR, CFPB 불만 사항, BLS 고용 | |
3 | 비자 게시판, 국경 대기 시간 | |
3 | EPA 대기질, HUD 압류 | |
4 | SAM.gov 계약, USAspending | |
4 | PACER, 연방법원 기록 | |
4 | NIH 임상 시험, FDA 부작용 | |
4 | SEC 기업 검색, SBA 리소스 | |
4 | 연방 관보, regulations.gov | |
4 | Grants.gov, USAspending | |
4 | SEC 서류, 특허 데이터, 무역 데이터 |
45개의 엔드포인트를 갖춘 REST API 게이트웨이도 govdata-api.netlify.app에서 사용할 수 있습니다.
NVD: 이 제품은 NVD API의 데이터를 사용하지만 NVD의 보증이나 인증을 받지 않았습니다.
EPSS: FIRST.org에서 제공하는 데이터 (https://www.first.org/epss/).
ATT&CK: The MITRE Corporation의 등록 상표입니다. Apache 2.0 라이선스 하에 있습니다.
KEV: CISA 알려진 악용 취약점 카탈로그, 미국 정부 퍼블릭 도메인.
비즈니스를 위한 사용자 지정 MCP 서버가 필요하신가요? mcpdev.netlify.app을 방문하거나 codee.mcpdev@gmail.com으로 이메일을 보내주세요.
MIT
Search CVEs for a specific vendor/product, cross-referenced with CISA KEV.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendor | Yes | Vendor name (e.g., 'microsoft', 'apache') | |
| product | No | Product name (e.g., 'windows', 'log4j') | |
| limit | No |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Get CVEs with highest EPSS exploitation probability scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threshold | No | Minimum EPSS score (0-1) | |
| limit | No |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Get CISA KEV vulnerabilities with upcoming remediation deadlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Deadline within next N days | |
| limit | No |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Get recently added CISA KEV entries (actively exploited vulnerabilities).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look back N days | |
| limit | No |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Look up a CVE by ID and get enriched intelligence: NVD details (CVSS score, description, references), CISA KEV active exploitation status, EPSS exploitation probability score, and MITRE ATT&CK techniques.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cveId | Yes | CVE identifier (e.g., CVE-2021-44228) |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Search the NIST NVD for CVEs by keyword, severity, and date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | No | Search keyword (e.g., 'apache log4j') | |
| severity | No | CVSS v3.1 severity | |
| pubStartDate | No | Start date ISO format | |
| pubEndDate | No | End date ISO format | |
| hasKev | No | Only show actively exploited CVEs | |
| limit | No |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Get recently published critical/high severity CVEs from the NVD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Published within last N days | |
| severity | No | CRITICAL | |
| limit | No |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0vuln_by_vendorvuln_epss_topvuln_kev_due_soonvuln_kev_latestvuln_lookup_cvevuln_searchvuln_trendingScored across 7 tools
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.
All tool names follow the pattern vuln_<descriptive_name>, using underscores and consistent noun/verb structure. No mixing of conventions.
7 tools cover the core vulnerability intelligence domain without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is well-scoped.
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.
CVE intelligence: exploitation (KEV/EPSS), detection coverage, fixed versions. All tools keyless.
Real-time CVE, exploit, and vulnerability intelligence for AI assistants (350K+ CVEs, 115K+ PoCs)
CVE search, vulnerability database, EPSS exploit prediction, KEV, IP reputation & threat feed.
Search and audit NIST NVD CVEs by keyword, severity, CWE, CISA KEV status, and CPE.
