Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RAD Security

RAD Security

Official
by rad-security
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

search_cves

Search for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) by vendor and product to identify security risks in software components.

Instructions

Search CVEs by vendor and optionally product. Source: cve-search.org

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": {
      "vendor": "<vendor>"
    },
    "name": "search_cves"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendorYesVendor name to search for
productNoProduct name to search for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the data source ('cve-search.org') without detailing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the source attribution into a second sentence for better clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and usage context. For a search tool with many siblings, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing that 'product' is optional, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching CVEs by vendor and optionally product. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'CVEs' with filtering criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cve' or 'get_latest_30_cves', 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions the optional 'product' parameter but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cve' or 'list_cve_vendors'. No context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools