Skip to main content
Glama

d3fend_defense_for_attack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up an ATT&CK technique ID (T-code) to receive D3FEND defenses that mitigate it. Bridges offensive intelligence to defensive playbooks.

Instructions

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: 100/hr, Pro: 1000/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
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.
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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) are present. Description adds significant behavioral details: rate limits (100/hr free, 1000/hr Pro), behavior when no mapping (200 with empty defenses), truncation mechanics (total and truncated flag), and that coverage_by_tactic always aggregates full set. No contradictions.

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?

Description is longer but every sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with core purpose, then details. Could be slightly more terse, but efficient given the complexity.

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 4 parameters, 1 required, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (return fields listed in description), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, edge cases, rate limits, and return format. No gaps.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters. Description enriches each: explains why limit default 30 (token efficiency for popular T-codes), what 'include' does (slim vs full), and how 'exclude_id' is used for chaining. Adds meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Reverse lookup: given an ATT&CK T-code, return D3FEND defenses that mitigate it.' and explains it bridges offensive intelligence to defensive playbook. It distinguishes from siblings like d3fend_defense_lookup and cve_lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description advises when to use: after cve_lookup or atlas_technique_lookup output carrying ATT&CK IDs. Also explains parameter choices (limit, include, exclude_id) in context. No explicit exclusions, but context is clear enough for agent decision-making.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/UPinar/contrastapi'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server