Skip to main content
Glama

D3FEND Defense Search

d3fend_defense_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the MITRE D3FEND catalog of defensive techniques by keyword, tactic, or artifact. Discover defenses to harden, detect, or isolate against specific threat models.

Instructions

Search the MITRE D3FEND catalog of defensive techniques by keyword, tactic, or targeted artifact. Default response is SLIM (drops uri from each row — saves ~60 chars/row, ~30% on popular drills); pass include='full' for the verbose record. Pass exclude_id when chaining from d3fend_defense_lookup to skip self in sibling-artifact searches. Use to discover defenses applicable to a given threat model — e.g. 'what defenses harden access tokens?' (tactic=Harden + artifact='Access Token'). Drill into d3fend_defense_lookup with any returned defense_id for the ATT&CK technique mappings. Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {query, total, results [{defense_id, label, uri (only when include=full), parent_label, tactic, artifact}], next_calls}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return. Range: 1-200.
tacticNoFilter by D3FEND tactic. One of: Model, Harden, Detect, Isolate, Deceive, Evict, Restore. Omit for all tactics.
includeNoDetail level. Default (omit/empty) returns slim rows (drops the deterministic ontology `uri` field, ~60 chars/row saved). Pass 'full' to get `uri` back on every row. The slug `defense_id` is always returned and uniquely identifies the defense.
keywordNoSubstring match against defense label, description, or parent_label (case-insensitive). Min 2 chars. Example: 'token', 'hashing', 'sandbox'. Omit to list all.
artifactNoFilter by exact targeted digital artifact (case-insensitive), e.g. 'Access Token', 'File', 'Process'. Omit for any artifact.
exclude_idNoOptional D3FEND defense slug (CamelCase, e.g. 'TokenBinding') to omit from results. Useful when chaining from d3fend_defense_lookup so the originating defense is not echoed back in its own siblings list. Omit when not needed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only hint at read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral details: default slim response (saves ~60 chars/row, ~30%), include='full' option, rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro), and return format specification.

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?

The single-paragraph description is well-structured: purpose, default behavior, parameters, usage example, chaining, rate limits, return format. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple filters, chaining, rate limits, differing response formats) and the presence of output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects thoroughly.

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?

All 6 parameters are already described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the default include behavior with char savings, the chaining use of exclude_id, and providing examples for keyword and artifact.

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 the tool searches the MITRE D3FEND catalog by keyword, tactic, or artifact. It differentiates itself from siblings like d3fend_defense_lookup by specifying chaining behavior.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases (e.g., hardening access tokens) and chaining instructions with exclude_id. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context with sibling tools implies appropriate usage.

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