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

Get licence notices

graph_notices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the licence and attribution notices for the data sources behind an answer.

    Other tools list notice ids with their answers. Pass those ids here to get, for each notice, its title, what it applies to, the obligation it places on you (for example attribution wording or a share-alike condition) and the notice text. Long texts are cut and flagged text_truncated, with text_url pointing to the full text.

    When to call it: before you quote, republish or build on anything the graph returned, and then quote what the obligation requires. Unknown ids are reported in unknown rather than failing.

    What it is not for: it returns no security facts, and it is source licence information, not legal advice. It only reads and gives the same answer each time for a snapshot.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "graph_notices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No	Notice ids to fetch, as listed in the notice list of other answers, at most 10 per call. Omit to get the notices the server holds (up to 10). Ids it does not know come back in the unknown list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / ids / description

Added value: +"Notice ids to fetch, as listed in the notice list of other answers, at most 10 per call. Omit to get the notices the server holds (up to 10). Ids it does not know come back in the unknown list."

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: truncation behaviour with the text_truncated flag, text_url for full text, graceful handling of unknown ids, and stable answers for a snapshot. It also warns that the payload is source licence information and not legal advice, which is a semantic boundary the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then deliberately structured with 'When to call it' and 'What it is not for' blocks. Every sentence carries usable information, and the only minor overlap (ids listed by other tools) is restated in the schema for independent readability.

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 and a single optional parameter, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (title, what it applies to, obligation, notice text) plus the truncation and unknown-id fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret the response is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the schema documents the ids parameter fully (max 10, omit for server-held notices, unknown ids returned). The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: where those ids come from ('other tools list notice ids with their answers') and that unknown ids are reported in an 'unknown' field rather than causing failure.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('return the licence and attribution notices') plus the scope ('for the data sources behind an answer'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling graph_* tools by noting that 'other tools list notice ids with their answers', so an agent can see this is the follow-up fetch step rather than a search or 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('before you quote, republish or build on anything the graph returned') and an explicit exclusion section ('What it is not for: it returns no security facts ... not legal advice'). The relationship to sibling tools is spelled out as a two-step workflow: get ids from an answer, pass them here.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?