Skip to main content
Glama
roadwy

cve-search_mcp

vul_cve_search

Retrieve detailed JSON data for a specific CVE ID by querying the CVE-Search API, enabling quick access to vulnerability details for analysis and response.

Instructions

To get a JSON of a specific CVE ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • main.py:54-60 (handler)
    The handler function for the 'vul_cve_search' tool. It accepts a CVE ID as input, constructs the appropriate API endpoint URI, and retrieves the CVE details using the shared get_requests helper function.
    @mcp.tool()
    def vul_cve_search(cve_id: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        To get a JSON of a specific CVE ID
        """
        uri = f"cve/{cve_id}"
        return get_requests(uri)
  • main.py:15-26 (helper)
    Helper function that performs HTTP GET requests to the CVE search API (BASE_URL = https://cve.circl.lu/api/), handles errors, and returns JSON data. Used by vul_cve_search and other tools.
    def get_requests(uri: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """To get a JSON with all the requests"""
        session = requests.Session()
        url = f"{BASE_URL}{uri}"
        try:
            response = session.get(url, timeout=15)
            response.raise_for_status()
            return response.json()
        except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e:
            logger.error(f"api request failed: {url} - {str(e)}")
            return {"error": str(e)}
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns JSON for a specific CVE ID, but doesn't describe behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the essential action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (a search operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances. The description is too minimal to provide adequate context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the 'cve_id' parameter (e.g., format like 'CVE-2024-12345', examples, or constraints). With 1 parameter and low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's semantics unclear beyond what the schema's title ('Cve Id') provides.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the purpose ('get a JSON of a specific CVE ID'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'CVE ID', but doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'vul_last_cves' (which might get multiple CVEs) or 'vul_vendor_product_cve' (which might filter by vendor/product). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch data).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention siblings like 'vul_last_cves' for recent CVEs or 'vul_vendor_product_cve' for vendor/product-specific searches. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid CVE ID format. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/roadwy/cve-search_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server