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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search functionality and parameter constraints (e.g., character limits, default values), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then uses an 'Args:' section to detail parameters efficiently. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 (which handles return values), no annotations, and the description fully documents all parameters, it's mostly complete. However, it could improve by mentioning the data source (NVD) more explicitly in context or noting typical use cases, but the parameter coverage and structure make it highly functional.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' accepts letters, numbers, spaces, hyphens, dots with a max length, 'severity' filters by CVSS v3 levels, and 'limit' has a range and default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 searches NVD for CVEs by keyword and optional severity filter, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('CVEs'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lookup_cve' or 'get_cve_summary' that might also retrieve CVE information, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'lookup_cve' or 'get_cve_summary' from the sibling list. It mentions optional filtering by severity but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what scenarios warrant using this search tool over other CVE-related tools.

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