PAGES
← all tools
◆ Vulnerability Management

CVE MCP Server

v0.2.0 open-source

CVE MCP Server provides an MCP interface for looking up Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs).

Summary

CVE MCP Server is an open-source Model Context ProtocolModel Context ProtocolModel Context Protocol, a standard for connecting AI applications to external tools and data sources. A compatible server exposes capabilities an assistant can use through a common interface. (MCP) server that turns an AI like Claude into a security analyst by providing direct access to 28 security tools across 24 APIs. The tool is licensed under MIT and runs as a service, integrating via a client that connects via stdio. It is designed for security professionals who need to correlate data from sources like NVDNVDThe National Vulnerability Database, maintained by NIST, is the U.S. government repository of CVE records enriched with CVSS scores and metadata; cyber tools query it to drive vulnerability prioritization., EPSSEPSSExploit Prediction Scoring System, an estimate of the probability that a published vulnerability will be exploited in the next 30 days. It helps prioritize investigation and patching., and CISA KEVCISA KEVA catalog maintained by the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency listing vulnerabilities confirmed to be actively exploited in the wild, giving cyber tools a vetted, authoritative prioritization signal. when triaging CVEs. Its documentation positions it alongside generic cyber tool(s) for vulnerability management, and the project has consistent commits and tooling development activity.

CVE MCP Server provides an MCP interface for looking up Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs).

How CVE MCP Server helps

Should we patch this CVE now, or can it wait?

correlates CVSS from NVD, exploitation probability from EPSS, and active-exploitation status from CISA KEV into a single composite risk score, with a KEV hit hard-overriding the score to force urgent priority

Is this vulnerability already being exploited in the wild?

checks CISA KEV directly and surfaces the listing alongside related signals, so a known-exploited flag is never buried under a merely high CVSS number

What does the evidence behind a risk score actually look like?

pulls the underlying CVSS detail, EPSS probability, KEV status, and related findings from each source it queried and returns them alongside the recommendation rather than just a verdict

How do I avoid opening a dozen tabs to piece together one CVE's story?

fans a single question out to NVD, EPSS, CISA KEV, GitHub, VirusTotal, and other sources in parallel and hands back one correlated answer

Which of these 50 CVEs are actually worth my afternoon?

runs the same triage and scoring logic across a batch of identifiers so the list comes back ranked instead of requiring one lookup at a time

Has a patch or upstream fix already been published for this issue?

queries GitHub alongside the vulnerability databases so patch availability shows up next to the severity and exploitation evidence

Languages

Not documented

Score card

  1. Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
  2. Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
  3. Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
  4. Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
  5. Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
  6. Community health
  7. Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
  8. Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
  9. Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
  10. Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply

Nine scores for CVE MCP Server, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.

Score cards are part of every paid plan.

See plans →

Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.

How this is scored
  • Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
  • Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
  • Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
  • Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
  • Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
  • Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
  • Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
  • Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.

Release-note detail over time

See how much detail CVE MCP Server puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.

Checking release-note history…

Explore the full chart →

Releases

Show

4 entries

  1. October 20261
  2. September 20262
  3. June 20261
    Show

    4 entries

    Project health

    Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in mukul975/cve-mcp-server, 2023-12 – 2026-11, as of 2026-11-03. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.

    1. Contributors 2 +2 vs prior 12 months
    2. Maintainers 1 +1 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
    3. Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
    4. Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
    5. Median time to close 4 days first maintainer reply 4 days
    6. Open backlog 4 of 6 issues ever filed
    1. Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
    2. Open backlog 4
    3. Contributors / month 0
    4. Commits / month 0
    5. Stars not measured
    Issue themes, last 12 months
    • bugs 17%
    • features 33%
    • other 50%

    Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this

    Libraries its release ships

    What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.

    None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.

    Add the badge to your README

    Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.

    Tracked by Cyber Toolchain Choose a badge style and copy the code →
    browse all tools → score card for your toolchain →