KernelScan

search_cves

Search Linux kernel CVEs.

    No API key required: keyless callers get the free public tier — recent
    high-severity Linux kernel CVEs (capped at 25 results). Free *keyed*
    callers see only CVEs published in the last 60 days; basic+ keyed
    callers get the full corpus.
    ``query`` matches against CVE id and description (case-insensitive).
    ``severity`` filters by effective severity (``critical``/``high``/``medium``/``low``).
    ``cvss_min`` filters by effective CVSS score.
    ``published_after`` (ISO 8601) returns only CVEs newer than that date.
    Returns up to ``limit`` (max 100) CVEs, newest first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`cvss_min`	No
`severity`	No
`published_after`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It covers tier differences, query behavior, sorting (newest first), and max limit. However, it does not describe the return fields (no output schema) or error handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 relatively concise with clear point-by-point explanations, though the tier information could be briefer. It front-loads the purpose and uses line breaks for readability.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality well (parameters, tiers, sorting). However, it lacks details on return fields and error conditions, which would make it more complete for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It thoroughly describes all five parameters (query, severity, cvss_min, published_after, limit) with details on matching, filtering behavior, and default values, adding significant beyond the schema.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Search Linux kernel CVEs' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_cve' by focusing on search over multiple CVEs, not a single one.

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 details tier-based access restrictions (keyless, free keyed, basic+ keyed) and explains how each filter works (query, severity, cvss_min, published_after, limit). However, it does not explicitly state when to use search_cves versus get_cve (direct lookup), though the 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?