Bidda Sovereign Intelligence

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns a Bidda node plus obligations and mentions 'Free', but does not detail rate limits, authentication, or response structure beyond that.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a memorable metaphor and then detailed specifics. It is slightly verbose with 'The MITRE Rosetta Stone' and 'Free', but each part adds flavor or info. No wasted sentences.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (multiple frameworks and compliance standards) and no output schema, the description should explain more about the response format. It lists the standards but not the structure, which is a notable gap for an AI agent.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter with extensive valid ID examples. The tool description adds framework context but introduces a slight inconsistency by listing 5 frameworks while schema includes CAPEC as an additional valid input type. Overall, the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 maps a MITRE technique ID to a Bidda node and associated compliance obligations across multiple frameworks. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its specific 'Rosetta Stone' role, bridging SOC and compliance terminology.

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?

Usage is implied clearly: when you have a MITRE technique ID and need mapping to compliance controls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among sibling tools.

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

All Bidda Sovereign Intelligence 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes. The few overlapping pairs (get_node vs consult_node, get_latest_changes vs obligation_deltas) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, so an agent should be able to select correctly. No tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_node, create_attestation, seal_run). However, several tools deviate significantly: drift_check and gap_check put the noun first, obligation_deltas is a bare noun, and point_in_time and oscal_assessment_results are noun phrases without a verb. This inconsistency makes the set feel less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this is at the heavy end of the range. However, the tool set covers a very broad compliance intelligence domain, including discovery, compliance checks, run management, attestations, and change feeds. Each tool has a clear role, but the sheer number may overwhelm agents that need only a subset of functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive for a compliance intelligence platform. It covers discovery (browse, search, list, get), action compliance checking, jurisdiction comparison, dependency analysis, change tracking, run ledger management, attestation creation, and evidence export. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?