KernelScan

get_cve

Fetch a single Linux kernel CVE by ID (e.g. CVE-2024-12345).

    No API key required: keyless callers get the public representation of a
    CVE, but only for CVEs in the public set (recent high-severity); any
    other id returns ``not found``. Free *keyed* callers get a 404 for CVEs
    published more than 60 days ago. AI risk-summary / analysis fields are
    included for any keyed user on CVEs in the public set, and for pro /
    enterprise on every assessed CVE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It details behavior based on caller type, access levels, error responses, and inclusion of AI fields, going beyond a basic fetch description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear first sentence but includes a lengthy second paragraph with conditional details. Fairly well-structured but could be more concise.

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

Completeness5/5

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 is comprehensive: it explains the exact behavior, access tiers, and edge cases, leaving no major gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds an example ID format but does not fully specify the parameter constraints or allowed values. It partially compensates but leaves room for ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool fetches a single Linux kernel CVE by ID, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling search_cves tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description provides clear context on usage for different caller types (keyless, free keyed, pro/enterprise), including when results are returned vs not found or 404. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, but the sibling context implies it.

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

All KernelScan tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: product lifecycle (create/get/list/update), CVE lookup/search, VEX retrieval, access request, support submission, and identity/quota check. There is no overlap; even create_product and update_product are clearly differentiated by their operation semantics.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_product, get_cve, list_products, etc.) using lowercase with underscores. The only outlier is whoami, which is a standard Unix-style command and fits naturally.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for the domain of Linux kernel security scanning and CVE/product management. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat, covering the core workflows without overwhelming the agent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the major lifecycle for products (create, get, list, update) and CVEs (search, get), plus VEX retrieval and account context. Minor gaps exist such as product deletion or direct config upload, but these can be worked around via existing tools and the REST API.

Resources

Need Help?