get_vulnerabilityGet full detail for a single vulnerability by its OSV ID — e.g. "GHSA-jf85-cpcp-j695", "CVE-2021-23337", "PYSEC-2021-XXX". Returns summary, details, aliases, severity, affected packages/ranges, and references. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A vulnerability ID, e.g. "GHSA-jf85-cpcp-j695", "CVE-2021-23337", "PYSEC-2021-1". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "GHSA-jf85-cpcp-j695"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "CVE-2021-23337"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating the tool is 'Keyless' (no auth) and by detailing the return fields (summary, details, aliases, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action and examples. Every word earns its place—no fluff. Efficient and clear.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It lists all key return fields, making it complete for the agent to understand the tool's utility.
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% for the single 'id' parameter. The description adds meaning by giving specific examples, clarifying OSV ID format, and mentioning that IDs like 'GHSA-jf85-cpcp-j695' are valid, going beyond the schema's generic description.
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 detail for a single vulnerability by OSV ID, with examples of valid IDs and a list of returned fields. It is specific and actionable, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like query_package_vulns, so it gets a 4.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., query_package_vulns for listing vulnerabilities). It lacks usage context or exclusions, so it scores a 2.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, as are the suite of polymarket_* tools. While descriptions help differentiate, an agent may struggle to choose the correct one without careful reading.
All tool names use snake_case, but they mix verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim) with noun-first patterns (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback). This inconsistency makes it harder to guess tool names by convention.
35 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a platform covering vulnerability queries, data retrieval, prediction markets, and utilities. However, the server name 'Osv' suggests a narrow focus, making the large count feel bloated.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations: querying data, comparing entities, managing user data, monitoring subscriptions, and even onboarding. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct API for updating user profiles), but overall it is well-rounded for its domain.