Search publicly available CVEs with literal queries, newest first, and filter by known exploited, AI-only, or research-only results; paginate to browse advisories and sources.
Filter and paginate CVEs, newest publication first. Limit 1..50; offset <= 10000. Search is literal, not semantic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| ai_only | No | ||
| kev_only | No | ||
| research_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety traits (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: newest-first ordering, pagination caps, and literal search semantics. It stops short of describing the return shape or the meaning of the boolean filters, but the added behavioral context is substantive.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the most important constraints. There is no filler and every sentence contributes useful 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 core search and pagination behavior is clear, but with six parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should do more to explain the boolean filter parameters and expected result shape. It is adequate for basic use but incomplete for fully informed invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains limits for limit and offset and clarifies that query is literal, but it leaves ai_only, kev_only, and research_only entirely unexplained, so half the parameters remain opaque.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Filter and paginate CVEs," plus sort order ("newest publication first"). It is clear enough to distinguish a list-search operation from a single-record fetch, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_cve or search.
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?
It provides operational guidance on pagination bounds and query semantics ("Search is literal, not semantic"), which helps an agent invoke it correctly. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cve or fetch, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.