Skip to main content
Glama

D3FEND Defense for Attack

d3fend_defense_for_attack
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reverse lookup: given an ATT&CK T-code, return D3FEND defenses that mitigate it. This is the bridge from offensive intelligence (ATT&CK / ATLAS / CVE) to defensive playbook. Pair with cve_lookup or atlas_technique_lookup output — when those carry an ATT&CK id, call this tool to surface the mitigations. defenses is capped at limit (default 30) for token efficiency; total is the honest pre-truncation count and truncated=true flags when the cap was hit. coverage_by_tactic always aggregates the FULL set, not the slice. Default response is SLIM (drops uri from each row); pass include='full' for the verbose record. Pass exclude_id when drilling from d3fend_defense_lookup to skip self in the 'see also' list. Returns 200 with empty defenses list when the T-code has no D3FEND mapping (the gap is itself a signal). Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {attack_technique_id, total, truncated, defenses [{defense_id, label, uri (only when include=full), parent_label, tactic, artifact, attack_label, attack_tactic}], coverage_by_tactic, next_calls}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoCap on `defenses` array length. Default 30; popular T-codes (T1059, T1078) map to 30-50+ defenses. `total` and `coverage_by_tactic` always reflect the honest pre-truncation count.
includeNoDetail level. Default (omit/empty) returns slim rows (drops the deterministic ontology `uri` — popular T-codes with 15+ defenses save ~900 chars). Pass 'full' to get `uri` back on every row.
exclude_idNoOptional D3FEND defense slug to omit from the defenses list. Used when chaining from d3fend_defense_lookup so the originating defense is not echoed back in its own 'see also' results.
attack_technique_idYesATT&CK technique id matching 'T####' or 'T####.###' (e.g. 'T1059', 'T1550.001'). Use this to bridge from CVE/ATLAS findings to D3FEND mitigations.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, including truncation behavior ('defenses is capped at limit', 'total is the honest pre-truncation count'), response slim/full modes, the 'gap is itself a signal' empty-list case, and rate limits. This goes far beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence provides unique value: purpose, use case, parameter semantics, output details, and rate limits are clearly separated and front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers all necessary context: when to use, parameter nuance, output schema semantics (including truncated flag and coverage_by_tactic aggregation), error behavior (200 with empty list), and rate limits. With an output schema present, the return format explanation is complementary, and it fully prepares the agent for invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches meaning for each parameter: limit's token-efficiency motivation, include's slim/full tradeoff, exclude_id's chaining purpose, and attack_technique_id's regex format. This transforms raw schema attributes into actionable guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reverse lookup: given an ATT&CK T-code, return D3FEND defenses that mitigate it.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like d3fend_defense_lookup and d3fend_attack_coverage by framing it as the offensive-to-defensive bridge.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Pair with cve_lookup or atlas_technique_lookup output — when those carry an ATT&CK id, call this tool to surface the mitigations.' Also gives a chaining example with d3fend_defense_lookup via exclude_id, making the intended context clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with differences between lookup/search/scan/audit for each domain. However, some overlap exists (e.g., email_mx vs email_security_posture, scan_headers vs contrast_scan) which could cause occasional confusion. Overall, boundaries are well-defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., cve_lookup, check_headers, bulk_cve_lookup) with all lowercase underscores. Variations like kev_detail or ssl_check are minor and still predictable. No chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

54 tools is high but justified by the broad cybersecurity scope (CVE, ATLAS, D3FEND, Sigma, domain, email, IOC, scanning). Some redundancy exists (e.g., three email-related tools), but the count is not excessive given the API's comprehensive feature set.

Completeness5/5

The tool set thoroughly covers the threat intelligence and domain investigation lifecycle: CVE/KEV/exploit/CWE, ATLAS/D3FEND/Sigma, DNS/WHOIS/SSL/subdomains, email security, IOC enrichment, and active scanning. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated cybersecurity purpose.