Skip to main content
Glama
roadwy

cve-search_mcp

vul_vendors

Retrieve a JSON list of all vendors from the CVE-Search API to identify potential vulnerabilities and assess security risks efficiently.

Instructions

To get a JSON with all the vendors

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • main.py:29-34 (handler)
    The main handler function for the 'vul_vendors' tool. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator and calls the get_requests helper to fetch a list of all vendors from the CVE search API at https://cve.circl.lu/api/browse.
    def vul_vendors() -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        To get a JSON with all the vendors
        """
        return get_requests("browse")
  • main.py:15-26 (helper)
    Helper function used by vul_vendors (and other tools) to make HTTP GET requests to the CVE API and return JSON data 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:29-29 (registration)
    The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the vul_vendors function as an MCP tool.
    def vul_vendors() -> Dict[str, Any]:
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 mentions the output format ('JSON') but doesn't describe other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 very concise ('To get a JSON with all the vendors'), consisting of a single sentence that directly states the purpose. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency. The brevity is appropriate for a simple tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool in a vulnerability context, more guidance on when to use it would improve completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description correctly doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate. It adds value by specifying the output format ('JSON'), which isn't covered by the schema, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose ('get a JSON with all the vendors'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'vul_vendor_products' or 'vul_vendor_product_cve', leaving ambiguity about scope. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'vendors' means in this context.

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. With sibling tools like 'vul_vendor_products' and 'vul_vendor_product_cve', there's no indication of whether this tool is for listing vendors only, while others might filter by products or CVEs. The lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.

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