Calculates CVSS 3.1 base scores from a vector string and explains each metric, without inferring missing values. Helps analysts assess vulnerability severity.
CVSS 3.1 base score with metric explanation. Does not infer metric values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vector | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds a meaningful constraint beyond annotations: it will not infer missing metric values, so the caller must supply a complete vector. It still omits output format and error behavior, so it is not a 5.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the result and follows with the key limitation, making it appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.
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 simple CVSS scoring tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and one important constraint. However, it leaves the required vector format undocumented and provides no usage context, which are clear gaps against the 0% parameter coverage.
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?
There is one required parameter, 'vector', with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies CVSS 3.1 context but does not explain the expected vector syntax, required metric fields, or examples, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
The description states the specific domain output: a CVSS 3.1 base score with metric explanation. It does not use a clear action verb, but an agent can infer the tool computes or returns severity scoring. Sibling tools are not distinguished, keeping it from a 5.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as security_triage or security_report. The sentence 'Does not infer metric values' is a behavioral boundary, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.