get_kev_recent
Get recently added entries to the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to look back (1-365, default: 30) |
sectora
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states 'get recently added entries' without disclosing output format, count limits, or ordering. Agent gets no behavioral details beyond purpose.
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?
Single sentence, no redundant information. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks specification of return structure or behavior.
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 covers the sole parameter fully with description. Description adds no additional semantics beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'recently added entries to CISA KEV catalog', which is distinct from sibling tools that deal with CVEs or postures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like lookup_cve or search_cves. Context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'lookup_cve' and 'get_weaponization_score' both focus on a single CVE, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify their different outputs (full enrichment vs. numerical score).
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use 'get_', others 'list_', 'lookup_', 'assess_', 'scan_url', 'search_cves'. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range, covering a broad scope of security assessment and intelligence without being excessive.
Completeness3/5
Core workflows (scanning, vulnerability lookup, threat stats) are covered, but missing update/delete operations for scans and domain verification tool. Notable gaps exist but core functionality is present.