Retrieve complete exploit metadata and source code by providing an Exploit-DB ID, enabling direct access for analysis and use.
Get full details and source code for an exploit.
Args: edb_id: Exploit-DB ID number
Returns: Exploit metadata and source code
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edb_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it returns metadata and source code. No disclosure of side effects, auth needs, or read-only nature.
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?
Extremely concise with clear sections (main, Args, Returns). No wasted words.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return. Lacks any prerequisites or limitations.
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?
Though schema coverage is 0%, the description explains the 'edb_id' parameter as 'Exploit-DB ID number', adding type context beyond schema.
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 clearly states 'Get full details and source code for an exploit' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like exploit_search and exploit_copy.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. The parameter edb_id implies prior knowledge from exploit_search, but without guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.