Get full threat intelligence enrichment for a CVE including EPSS score, CISA KEV status, public exploits, Nuclei templates, risk level, and risk factors. 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 bears full responsibility. It lists the enrichments returned (EPSS score, KEV status, etc.), which gives insight into the output, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is a safe, read-only lookup with no side effects. The verb 'lookup' implies it, but explicit confirmation would improve transparency.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the main action and a comprehensive list of enrichments, followed by the input requirement. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff.
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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the list of enrichments. It could be slightly improved by noting the output format (e.g., JSON object), but it is largely complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description of the cve_id parameter. The description only repeats the input requirement without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 full threat intelligence enrichment for a specific CVE, listing numerous enrichments like EPSS score, KEV status, exploits, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as search_cves (which searches) and get_trending_cves (which lists trends) by focusing on a single CVE's deep enrichment.
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 specifies the input must be a valid CVE ID, providing a prerequisite for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cves or get_kev_recent, nor does it mention scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.
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.
