Skip to main content
Glama

d3fend_defense_for_attack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Translate an ATT&CK technique ID into D3FEND defenses that mitigate it, connecting threat intelligence to actionable 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: 30/hr, Pro: 500/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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are complemented by detailed behavioral info: cap on defenses with honest total/truncated flag, coverage_by_tactic always full, slim default vs full include, empty list on unmapped T-code, rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro). 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?

About 12 lines, well-structured with core purpose first then details. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but still efficient and clear.

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?

Covers response structure (attack_technique_id, total, truncated, defenses, coverage_by_tactic, next_calls), edge cases (empty list on no mapping), rate limits, and parameter behavior. Output schema exists but description still explains return format. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%. Description adds extra meaning: for attack_technique_id, it specifies bridging usage; for limit, gives example counts; for include, explains char savings; for exclude_id, describes chaining. Schema already strong, but description enriches.

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 'Reverse lookup: given an ATT&CK T-code, return D3FEND defenses that mitigate it.' It explains the bridging role and differentiates from siblings like d3fend_attack_coverage, d3fend_defense_lookup, and d3fend_defense_search by specifying the direction and use case.

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?

Provides explicit pairing guidance: 'Pair with cve_lookup or atlas_technique_lookup output — when those carry an ATT&CK id, call this tool.' Also mentions chaining with d3fend_defense_lookup via exclude_id. Does not include when-not-to-use but strong contextual cues.

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