CVE MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_kev

Check whether a specific CVE identifier is listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog to determine active exploitation risk.

Instructions

Check if a CVE is in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Args: cve_id: CVE identifier (e.g. CVE-2021-44228)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cve_id": "<cve_id>"
    },
    "name": "check_kev"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, data freshness, API limits, or result format. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second describes the parameter. Front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered, but the description doesn't explain typical behavior (e.g., boolean result). For a simple lookup, it's adequate but leaves uncertainty about what 'check' means (boolean vs details).

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds a format example ('CVE-2021-44228'), which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it's minimal and doesn't fully compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 the tool checks if a CVE is in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The verb 'Check' and resource 'KEV catalog' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like lookup_cve or check_exploit_availability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to prefer this over lookup_cve or check_exploit_availability, or any context for its use.

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