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. It discloses that the tool scans for known CVEs via OSV.dev, which implies it performs read-only queries without destructive actions. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement, usage context, and detailed parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the purpose more succinctly before diving into details.

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's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics effectively. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it could improve by mentioning behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'packages' parameter: it requires newline-separated 'name:ecosystem:version' entries, provides examples (e.g., 'openssl:Alpine:3.0.7-r0'), and specifies input sources like 'apk info -v' or 'dpkg -l' output. This adds significant meaning beyond the basic schema.

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: scanning container image packages for known CVEs via OSV.dev. It specifies the supported ecosystems (Alpine, Debian, Ubuntu, and any OSV-supported ecosystem) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_package_vulns' or 'scan_dependencies' by focusing on container OS packages rather than general package vulnerability checks or dependency scanning.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for scanning container image packages from specific OS ecosystems. It implies usage by mentioning input examples from 'apk info -v' or 'dpkg -l' output, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'check_package_vulns' for non-container packages.

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