CVE MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_vendor_advisory

Fetch vendor security advisories from Microsoft, Red Hat, and Ubuntu for a given CVE, including patch availability and affected products.

Instructions

Fetch vendor security advisories for a CVE from Microsoft (MSRC), Red Hat, and Ubuntu. Shows patch availability and affected products.

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_vendor_advisory"
  }
}

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what it fetches and shows, but fails to disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling (e.g., if CVE is not 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values don't need explanation) and one parameter, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks differentiation from similar sibling 'lookup_cve' and doesn't mention any edge cases or error conditions.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description adds value by specifying the parameter 'cve_id' with a format example (CVE-2021-44228). This compensates for the schema lack and helps the agent understand the required input.

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 it fetches vendor security advisories for a CVE from three specific vendors (Microsoft, Red Hat, Ubuntu) and shows patch availability and affected products. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like check_exploit_availability or check_poc_exists.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage when you need official vendor advisories/patch info for a CVE. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear among the many sibling tools.

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