wazuh-mcp

List detected vulnerabilities

wazuh_vulnerabilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

List CVEs detected on endpoints, filtered by agent, severity, CVE ID, or package, to reveal critical vulnerabilities, check for a specific CVE, or identify affected packages.

Instructions

List CVEs Wazuh has detected on endpoints, filterable by agent, severity, CVE ID and package. Answers 'what critical CVEs do we have', 'is CVE-2024-3094 anywhere in the estate', or 'which vulnerable packages are on this host'. Works on both 4.8+ (Indexer state) and earlier (Manager API) deployments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cve`	No	Specific CVE IDs, e.g. ['CVE-2024-3094'].
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`package`	No	Package name to match, e.g. 'openssl'.
`agent_id`	No	Restrict to these agent IDs. Omit for the whole fleet (4.8+ only).
`severity`	No	Restrict to these severities.
`min_score`	No	Minimum CVSS base score.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful compatibility note about working on both 4.8+ and earlier deployments, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 concise, using two sentences plus examples. It is well-structured and every sentence adds value, covering functionality, filters, use cases, and compatibility.

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 list-type tool, the description is complete: it covers what it does, filters, examples, and version compatibility. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. No missing context that would prevent correct usage.

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 descriptions cover 5 of 7 parameters (71%), with limit and offset lacking descriptions. The tool description mentions filter fields but does not compensate for the missing limit/offset semantics. Parameters that do have descriptions are clear, but overall the parameter information is only partially complete.

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 that the tool lists CVEs detected on endpoints, mentions the available filters (agent, severity, CVE ID, package), and provides example use cases. It is specific and distinguishes this from other tools like search or summary functions.

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 gives example questions the tool answers, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like wazuh_vulnerability_summary or wazuh_search_alerts. It also notes compatibility across versions, but lacks direct 'use this when' guidance.

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