Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GMPSignal Real-Time Intelligence MCP (59 Tools)

GMPSignal Real-Time Intelligence MCP (59 Tools)

Official
by xpayrcom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

cyber_cve_kev_epss_vulnerability_scanner

Scan CVEs against CISA KEV, EPSS scores, and exploit data to extract prioritized vulnerability intelligence in structured form.

Instructions

CVE Vulnerability, CISA KEV, EPSS & Exploit Scanner: Real-time structured data extraction feed for CVE Vulnerability, CISA KEV, EPSS & Exploit Scanner.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cyber_cve_kev_epss_vulnerability_scanner"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxResultsNoMaximum number of structured items to extract.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it falls well short. 'Real-time structured data extraction feed' hints at a live read operation but says nothing about rate limits, authentication/key requirements, whether results are cached, how the CVE/KEV/EPSS data are correlated, or what triggers a match.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short and front-loaded, but the second clause repeats the first verbatim with only a generic framing phrase added. Half the text is duplication rather than information, so brevity here reflects low content rather than disciplined writing.

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?

For a vulnerability-intelligence scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should at least indicate what an extracted item contains or which sources are queried. An agent cannot tell whether this returns CVE records, KEV flags, EPSS scores, or exploit availability, nor what input target it operates on.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter (maxResults), so the schema already documents its meaning and default. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but no better than baseline.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is a tautological restatement of the tool name: 'CVE Vulnerability, CISA KEV, EPSS & Exploit Scanner' followed by 'Real-time structured data extraction feed for CVE Vulnerability, CISA KEV, EPSS & Exploit Scanner.' It reveals the data domains (CVE, KEV, EPSS, exploit data) but supplies no verb describing an actual operation, and it does nothing to distinguish this from sibling CVE scanners such as shodan_internetdb_zero_key_ip_port_cve_scanner or vpn_gateway_firewall_cve_exposure_scanner.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance whatsoever: no condition for selecting this tool over the many other CVE/IP-exposure scanners in the catalog, no prerequisites, and no stated scope. The description gives an agent nothing to route on beyond the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools