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. It discloses the authentication requirement (SHODAN_KEY environment variable) and implies a read-only lookup operation, but it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format. It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by prerequisites and parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized.

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 (host lookup with security data), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral details like rate limits or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but some gaps remain.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the 'ip' parameter as an 'IPv4 address to look up' with an example ('e.g. 8.8.8.8'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it does not cover potential constraints like format validation or error cases.

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 ('Look up a host on Shodan') and lists the resources returned ('open ports, running services, OS, CVEs on the host'), distinguishing it from siblings like passive_dns_lookup or check_ip_reputation. It provides a comprehensive overview of what the tool does.

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 mentions the requirement for a SHODAN_KEY environment variable, which is a prerequisite, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_ip_reputation or passive_dns_lookup. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or sibling comparisons are included.

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