Get the weaponization score (0-100) for a CVE. Factors in EPSS, KEV status, exploit availability, Nuclei templates, and CVSS. Input must be a valid CVE ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cve_id | Yes | CVE identifier in format CVE-YYYY-NNNNN (e.g., CVE-2024-3400) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions factors considered but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or output behavior. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.
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?
Two compact sentences with no redundancy. Purpose, input requirement, and factors are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value and fits in a single glance.
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?
Given low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers purpose and input but lacks behavioral details (e.g., if no output schema, what does the response look like?). It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter documented in the schema. The description adds 'Input must be a valid CVE ID,' which reiterates the schema's pattern. No additional semantic value beyond schema constraints.
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 the tool retrieves a weaponization score (0-100) for a CVE, specifying factors considered and input requirement. It differentiates from siblings like lookup_cve (general CVE info) and get_trending_cves (trending CVEs).
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 implies usage when needing a weaponization score but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives like lookup_cve, which might also return risk scores. No exclusions or contextual guidance beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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 conventions are inconsistent: some tools use 'get_', others 'list_', 'lookup_', 'assess_', 'scan_url', 'search_cves'. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range, covering a broad scope of security assessment and intelligence without being excessive.
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.
