CVE MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lookup_cve

Retrieve detailed CVE information from NVD including CVSS scores, weaknesses, and CISA KEV status by providing a CVE identifier.

Instructions

Look up a CVE by ID from NVD. Returns full details including CVSS scores, description, weaknesses, and CISA KEV status.

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": "lookup_cve"
  }
}

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the return content (CVSS scores, description, weaknesses, CISA KEV status). It does not cover potential rate limits or authorization, but the read-only nature is inferred.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the purpose and return details, followed by a clear args section.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to provide input, leaving no gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning via an example format ('e.g. CVE-2021-44228') and explains it is a CVE identifier, which is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 looks up a specific CVE by ID from NVD, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_cves (search) and get_cve_summary (summary).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when one has a specific CVE ID (e.g., CVE-2021-44228), but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like search_cves for broader queries.

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