bidda-compliance

get_mitre_mapping

Read-only

The MITRE Rosetta Stone. Given a MITRE technique ID across 5 frameworks (ATT&CK Enterprise, ATT&CK Mobile, ATT&CK ICS, D3FEND, ATLAS), return the Bidda node for that technique plus its mapped compliance obligations: NIST 800-53 controls, ISO 27001 Annex A clauses, PCI DSS requirements, NIS2 articles, HIPAA Security Rule, DORA articles, NERC CIP, IEC 62443. The bridge between how SOC teams think (technique IDs) and how compliance teams think (control families). Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`technique_id`	Yes	MITRE technique ID. ATT&CK Enterprise (T1566, T1486, T1078, T1003.001, T1547.001); ATT&CK Mobile (T1474, T1521, T1471, T1430, T1417); ATT&CK ICS (T0883, T0809, T0879, T0886, T0814); D3FEND (D3-FIM, D3-MFA, D3-NTA, D3-NI, D3-AI, D3-CH); CAPEC (CAPEC-66, CAPEC-63, CAPEC-98, CAPEC-94, CAPEC-49); or ATLAS (AML.T0020).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the return structure (Bidda node plus compliance obligations) and mentions 'Free', providing additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a catchy metaphor, a clear technical explanation, and a practical bridge statement. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return values thoroughly: the Bidda node and the list of compliance obligations across many frameworks. It is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only mapping tool given the schema coverage.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed examples of valid technique IDs for each framework. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond reiterating 'MITRE technique ID', so the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: given a MITRE technique ID, return the Bidda node plus mapped compliance obligations across multiple frameworks. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing the unique 'bridge' between SOC and compliance domains.

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 for when to use this tool—when you have a MITRE technique ID and need compliance mappings. It implies usage through the 'bridge between how SOC teams think and how compliance teams think' phrasing, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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

All bidda-compliance 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct functions: discovery, analysis, runs, attestation, and change feeds. However, get_latest_changes, obligation_deltas, and watch_changes all relate to regulatory changes and could be confused, as could get_node vs consult_node. Descriptions clarify, but boundaries are not always obvious.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (browse_topics, create_attestation, get_node), but there are deviations like drift_check, gap_check, obligation_deltas, oscal_assessment_results, and point_in_time, which break the convention. Mixed patterns make the API less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end of the borderline range. Some tools (e.g., get_latest_changes vs obligation_deltas, get_run vs get_audit_pack) have overlapping functionality that could be consolidated, though the broad compliance domain justifies a larger surface.

Completeness3/5

The server covers discovery, analysis, run ledgers, attestation, and exports, but lacks a standalone way to access full node content outside a run (get_node returns only summaries; full nodes are external). This is a notable gap for compliance work. Also, there's no list of jurisdictions or verification tool for attestations, though these may be outside the server's intent.

Resources

Need Help?