Skip to main content
Glama
roadwy

cve-search_mcp

vul_vendor_products

Retrieve a JSON list of all products associated with a specific vendor from the CVE-Search API using the MCP server. Simplify vendor-product mapping for vulnerability management.

Instructions

To get a JSON with all the products associated to a vendor

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendorYes

Implementation Reference

  • main.py:36-42 (handler)
    The handler function for the 'vul_vendor_products' tool. It constructs a URI for the given vendor and calls get_requests to fetch the list of products from the CVE API.
    @mcp.tool()
    def vul_vendor_products(vendor: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        To get a JSON with all the products associated to a vendor
        """
        uri = f"browse/{vendor}"
        return get_requests(uri)
  • main.py:15-26 (helper)
    Helper function used by vul_vendor_products (and other tools) to make HTTP GET requests to the CVE API base URL and return JSON or error.
    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)}
  • main.py:36-36 (registration)
    The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the vul_vendor_products function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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 states it 'gets a JSON' but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with vulnerability data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of vulnerability data, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter semantics, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like the JSON structure, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable use.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is a 'vendor', but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid vendor (e.g., format, examples, or relationship to other tools). This is a baseline score given the schema's lack of detail.

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 action ('get a JSON') and resource ('products associated to a vendor'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vul_vendor_product_cve' or 'vul_vendors', which likely have related functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'vul_vendors' (which might list vendors) or 'vul_vendor_product_cve' (which might handle CVEs for vendor products), leaving the agent with no context for tool selection.

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