Fetches a CVE from the NIST NVD and returns its description, CVSS score, weaknesses, and references for threat verification.
Fetch a CVE from NIST NVD: description, CVSS, weaknesses, references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cve_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the provenance (NIST NVD) and the returned field categories. It says nothing about NVD rate limits, latency or timeout behavior, or what happens when a CVE ID is unknown or malformed — material gaps for an external-network lookup.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the source and return contents are packed into one clause without redundancy.
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?
For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, listing the returned sections (description, CVSS, weaknesses, references) is genuinely useful. Missing are failure semantics for invalid or unknown IDs and any note on external-service constraints, which the absence of annotations leaves entirely uncovered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter and its meaning is largely conveyed by the phrase 'a CVE' plus the schema's required CVE-YYYY-NNNN pattern. The description adds no format, case, or validity guidance beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (CVE) plus the authoritative source (NIST NVD) and the fields returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_known_exploited and check_package_vulns, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool name and description make clear it is a by-ID CVE lookup, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_security or check_known_exploited, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.