Skip to main content
Glama

ContrastAPI

by com.contrastcyber

D3FEND Defense Search

d3fend_defense_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the MITRE D3FEND catalog of defensive techniques by keyword, tactic, or targeted artifact. Default response is SLIM (drops uri from each row — saves ~60 chars/row, ~30% on popular drills); pass include='full' for the verbose record. Pass exclude_id when chaining from d3fend_defense_lookup to skip self in sibling-artifact searches. Use to discover defenses applicable to a given threat model — e.g. 'what defenses harden access tokens?' (tactic=Harden + artifact='Access Token'). Drill into d3fend_defense_lookup with any returned defense_id for the ATT&CK technique mappings. Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {query, total, results [{defense_id, label, uri (only when include=full), parent_label, tactic, artifact}], next_calls}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return. Range: 1-200.
tacticNoFilter by D3FEND tactic. One of: Model, Harden, Detect, Isolate, Deceive, Evict, Restore. Omit for all tactics.
includeNoDetail level. Default (omit/empty) returns slim rows (drops the deterministic ontology `uri` field, ~60 chars/row saved). Pass 'full' to get `uri` back on every row. The slug `defense_id` is always returned and uniquely identifies the defense.
keywordNoSubstring match against defense label, description, or parent_label (case-insensitive). Min 2 chars. Example: 'token', 'hashing', 'sandbox'. Omit to list all.
artifactNoFilter by exact targeted digital artifact (case-insensitive), e.g. 'Access Token', 'File', 'Process'. Omit for any artifact.
exclude_idNoOptional D3FEND defense slug (CamelCase, e.g. 'TokenBinding') to omit from results. Useful when chaining from d3fend_defense_lookup so the originating defense is not echoed back in its own siblings list. Omit when not needed.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description reveals important behaviors: default SLIM response dropping uri, rate limits (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr), the exact return format, and the effect of include='full'. This adds substantial context not available from annotations alone.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: search purpose, default output behavior, exclude_id usage, example query, drill-down pointer, rate limits, and return shape. It is front-loaded with the primary action and structured logically, earning its length.

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?

Given the tool's 6 optional parameters and existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: filtering options, output modes, rate limits, chaining behavior, and a concrete usage example. It even documents the return structure despite the output schema existing, providing complete guidance.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter coverage, but the description boosts understanding by explaining the rationale for include ('saves ~60 chars/row'), the chaining use of exclude_id, and giving a worked example (tactic=Harden + artifact='Access Token'). It clarifies when 'uri' appears in results.

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 searches the MITRE D3FEND catalog by keyword, tactic, or artifact, and provides a concrete example ('what defenses harden access tokens?'). It distinguishes itself from d3fend_defense_lookup by positioning it as the discovery search that returns defense_ids for later lookup.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use to discover defenses applicable to a given threat model') and names the alternative for drill-down ('Drill into d3fend_defense_lookup with any returned defense_id'). It also explains the chaining use case for exclude_id, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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

All ContrastAPI toolsInspect
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

A4.5/5.0
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.

Resources