Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Lattice: CVE, MITRE ATT&CK and detection graph for security agents

by io.namiq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read a node

graph_node
Read-onlyIdempotent

One node's properties (long text is clipped). uid comes from graph_lookup or graph_search. On a kev node: date_added, due_date, known_ransomware_use (Known or Unknown; Unknown means not recorded), required_action, vendor_project, product. On an nvd node: description and metadata (cvss_score, affected_products). A cvss_score of 0 means not scored yet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "uid": "<uid>"
    },
    "name": "graph_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYesThe uid of a node, as returned by graph_lookup, graph_search or graph_neighbors.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / uid / description
      Added value: +"The uid of a node, as returned by graph_lookup, graph_search or graph_neighbors."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: long text is clipped, and it enumerates the returned fields per node type with the important caveat that 'A cvss_score of 0 means not scored yet.' That last note prevents a genuine misreading of the data.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining text is dense field documentation with no filler. The telegraphic, fragment-heavy style reads as notes rather than prose but does not waste words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so for kev and nvd nodes including field-level meaning. Gaps remain for other node types the graph may contain and for error behavior on an invalid uid, but the core call path is covered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single uid parameter is already fully documented. The description restates its provenance but actually omits graph_neighbors, which the schema lists as a valid source, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and is marginally less complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource with scope: 'One node's properties (long text is clipped).' An agent can tell this is a single-node read versus the list-oriented graph_search/graph_lookup, though the phrasing is a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb and it never names graph_neighbors, whose output also feeds this tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It provides input provenance ('uid comes from graph_lookup or graph_search'), which implies a search-then-read workflow. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as graph_neighbors or graph_path, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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

All Lattice: CVE, MITRE ATT&CK and detection graph for security agents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources