CVE MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves EPSS scores but doesn't explain what EPSS is (e.g., a scoring system for exploit likelihood), how scores are formatted, whether it's a read-only operation, or any rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a brief 'Args' section with parameter details. There's no unnecessary information, and the structure is easy to parse. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanation into the main text, but it's efficient overall.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, which helps completeness. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage (0%), the description lacks details on behavioral traits and full parameter semantics. For a tool that likely involves external data retrieval (EPSS scores), more context on what EPSS is and how it works would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining the 'cve_ids' parameter as 'Comma-separated CVE IDs' with an example, which clarifies the input format beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't cover other potential aspects like input validation or constraints, leaving some semantics undocumented.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) scores for one or more CVEs.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('EPSS scores'), and target ('CVEs'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lookup_cve' or 'get_cve_summary', which might also retrieve CVE-related data but for different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'lookup_cve' (which might provide general CVE info) or 'check_kev' (which might check exploit status), leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone. There's no explicit context for when this tool is preferred or not.

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