cvescout

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_github_advisories

Read-only

Search the GitHub Advisory Database by look-back window, ecosystem, package, severity, CVSS score, RCE, or public exploit to identify vulnerable version ranges and first patched releases.

Instructions

Search the GitHub Advisory Database for security advisories published in the last N days, newest first. Best source for open-source dependencies: each reviewed advisory names the package, vulnerable version range and first patched version. Some advisories have no CVE ID (only a GHSA ID).

Args: days: Look-back window in days. ecosystem: Optional package ecosystem filter (pip = Python, npm = JavaScript, maven = Java, rust = crates.io, ...). package: Optional package name, e.g. "lodash" or "django". min_severity: Optional minimum severity. include_unreviewed: Also include advisories not yet reviewed by GitHub (usually NVD mirrors without package data). limit: Maximum number of advisories to return (1-100). min_score: Optional minimum CVSS base score (0-10), e.g. 8. rce_only: Only remote code execution (code/command injection reachable over the network; heuristic on CWE, description and CVSS vector). match_any: If true, keep items meeting ANY of min_severity/min_score/rce_only/poc_only instead of ALL of them. poc_only: Only items with a public exploit: a PoC repository on GitHub (listed in github_pocs, from nomi-sec/PoC-in-GitHub), a CISA SSVC or CVSS v4 rating of a public PoC (ignored when the CVE links a bug bounty report such as HackerOne), or exploitation in the wild (CISA KEV). A reference NVD tagged "Exploit" alone does not count. sort_by: "published" (newest first) or "risk" (highest patch priority first, over the newest 100 advisories).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`days`	No
`limit`	No
`package`	No
`sort_by`	No	published
`poc_only`	No
`rce_only`	No
`ecosystem`	No
`match_any`	No
`min_score`	No
`min_severity`	No
`include_unreviewed`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: newest-first default ordering, a special risk sort limited to the newest 100 advisories, inclusion/exclusion of unreviewed NVD mirrors, nuanced PoC detection rules, and the heuristic nature of rce_only. These details materially affect result interpretation and are not present in annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The purpose and caveats are front-loaded before the Args section, and the parameter list is dense but necessary for an 11-parameter tool with several non-obvious filters. Every sentence contributes operational meaning, with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only search tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: it covers purpose, source scope, default ordering, filtering interactions, and all parameter semantics. The output schema handles return-value details.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description documents all 11 parameters with meaning beyond names and types. It explains ecosystem aliases, package examples, limit bounds, severity and score thresholds, the match_any ALL-vs-ANY behavior, and the precise conditions for poc_only and rce_only.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching the GitHub Advisory Database for security advisories, with scope (last N days, newest first) and output characteristics (package, vulnerable range, patched version, GHSA-only entries). It also implicitly differentiates from CVE-oriented siblings by calling itself the best source for open-source dependencies with package-level advisory data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear usage context by positioning itself as the best source for open-source dependency advisories, which helps distinguish it from get_cve_details and search_recent_cves. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling tools it should replace in specific scenarios.

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

Deploy Server