threat_profile
Define threat landscape for TLPT scoping.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sector | No | ||
| geography | No | ||
| exclusions | No | ||
| exercise_id | Yes | ||
| crown_jewels | No | ||
| threat_actors | No | ||
| attack_scenarios | No | ||
| critical_systems | No |
tlpt
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'Define threat landscape' gives no information about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, earning high marks for brevity. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative, which weakens its structural effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this tool requires a rich description to fill gaps. The one-sentence description is far too sparse to provide adequate context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention any of these parameters, leaving their semantics entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool's function as defining a threat landscape for TLPT scoping, which is a specific action. However, it lacks detail on what 'define' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like generate_scenarios, making it only partially clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'for TLPT scoping', which implies usage during scoping phase but does not provide exclusions or alternatives.
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
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but potential confusion exists between 'auto_simulate' and 'generate_scenarios' (both involve scenario generation) and between 'health_check' and 'ping' (both test connectivity). Descriptions help mitigate but do not eliminate ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names consistently use snake_case but mix verb-based (generate_scenarios, register_exercise) and noun-based (evidence_bundle, threat_profile) patterns. 'ping' is a single word, breaking the pattern. This inconsistency may confuse agents about whether a tool performs an action or represents a resource.
Tool Count5/5
17 tools cover the breadth of TLPT activities (scoping, simulation, findings, compliance) without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a distinct part of the workflow, making the count well-scoped for domain complexity.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers major TLPT lifecycle phases: preparation (threat_profile), scenario generation (generate_scenarios, auto_simulate), execution mapping (attack_chain, mitre_map), findings (finding_register, remediation_plan), compliance (obligation_map, sync_to_ampel), and scheduling (test_calendar). Minor gaps like a dedicated reporting tool exist but can be worked around.