Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CVE MCP Server

CVE MCP Server

by mukul975
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_cve_summary

Retrieve a comprehensive one-page summary of any CVE, including severity, EPSS score, CISA KEV status, and timeline. Combines NVD and EPSS data for a unified view.

Instructions

Get a comprehensive one-page summary of a CVE: severity, EPSS, KEV status, description, weaknesses, and timeline. Fetches NVD + EPSS concurrently.

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": "get_cve_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description provides moderate behavioral detail: it fetches NVD and EPSS concurrently and returns a summary including severity, EPSS, KEV status, etc. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or whether it 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter listing. The main purpose is stated first, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential input, the sources fetched, and the summary items. Some behavioral context (e.g., caching, error handling) is missing, but overall it is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only a title and type for cve_id, but the description adds a clear explanation and a concrete example (CVE-2021-44228). This significantly aids understanding and correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides a comprehensive summary of a CVE, listing specific fields included. It distinguishes from some siblings by emphasizing concurrency and breadth, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related tools like lookup_cve or get_cve_timeline.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools