CVE MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or what 'check' entails (e.g., returns boolean, timestamp, or full KEV entry). The example CVE helps but doesn't cover behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second documents the single parameter with an example. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 low complexity (single parameter lookup), no annotations, but with output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics well, but could benefit from brief behavioral context (e.g., what the check returns).

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 compensate. It provides the parameter name, clarifies it's a CVE identifier, and gives a concrete example ('CVE-2021-44228'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Check if a CVE is in') and resource ('CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lookup_cve' or 'get_cve_summary' by focusing on KEV membership rather than general CVE information.

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 checking KEV status, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'check_exploit_availability' or 'get_epss_score'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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