CVE MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the tool returns only vulnerable packages, has a max limit of 1000 packages per call, and uses OSV.dev for scanning. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers key operational traits adequately for a read-only scanning tool.

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 core purpose, followed by specifics on inputs and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the 'Args:' section efficiently organizes parameter details, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity (bulk scanning with multiple input formats), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics thoroughly, leaving no critical gaps for agent invocation.

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 fully. It does so by explaining the 'dependency_list' parameter in detail: specifying acceptable input formats (requirements.txt, package.json, pom.xml, generic lines), providing syntax examples ('name:ecosystem:version'), and noting the max package limit. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Bulk scan application dependencies for known CVEs') and the resource ('via OSV.dev'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_package_vulns' or 'scan_container_packages' by specifying the input formats and scope. It explicitly mentions the supported file types and generic format, making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 by listing supported input formats (e.g., requirements.txt, package.json) and specifying it returns 'only vulnerable packages'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'check_package_vulns' or 'scan_container_packages', leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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