Skip to main content
Glama

Epss

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Top Exploited

top_exploited
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the CVEs most likely to be exploited, ranked by EPSS score descending. Answers "which vulnerabilities are most likely to be exploited right now" so you can prioritize patching. EPSS is the probability (0-1) a CVE will be exploited in the wild in the next 30 days; this complements CVSS severity rather than replacing it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax CVEs to return (default 30, max 100).
min_scoreNoEPSS threshold 0-1; only CVEs with a score greater than this are returned. Default 0.9.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 30,
+    "min_score": 0.9
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 50,
+    "min_score": 0.75
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. Description adds value by explaining ranking by EPSS descending and defining EPSS as probability of exploitation in next 30 days, which is beyond annotation scope.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context about ranking method and EPSS meaning. Could mention return fields (CVE ID, score) but not critical.

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 already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (limit and min_score). Description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema provides, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'List the CVEs most likely to be exploited, ranked by EPSS score descending' and answers a specific question. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on top exploited CVEs rather than individual EPSS queries.

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?

Description suggests using the tool for patching prioritization, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_epss. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

All Epss toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping functional space: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target Polymarket opportunity detection. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent can easily select the wrong query/research or prediction-market tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case and clusters like polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are internally consistent. However, the overall set mixes verb_object names (compare_entities, resolve_entity), bare verbs (forget, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, top_exploited), so there is no unifying naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the count exceeds the reasonable threshold for a focused server, and the problem is worse because the server is named Epss while most tools are Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools. A focused EPSS server would need only a handful of tools; this is a grab bag.

Completeness2/5

For the EPSS purpose implied by the server name, only get_epss and top_exploited exist, with no CVE search, historical score context, or vulnerability-management tooling. The unrelated research, memory, and prediction-market tools are individually fairly complete, but they do not fill the gap for the apparent EPSS use case.

Resources