Skip to main content
Glama
awslabs

Threat Modeling MCP Server

Official
by awslabs

add_threat_actor

Add threat actors to your threat model, individually or in batch, to identify and assess potential adversaries.

Instructions

Add a new threat actor. Supports batch operations via the 'items' parameter.

This tool adds one or more threat actors to the threat model. For single item: provide name, type, capability_level, motivations, resources directly. For batch: provide a list of threat actor dicts in the 'items' parameter.

Args: ctx: MCP context for logging and error handling name: Name of the threat actor (required for single item mode) type: Type of the threat actor (required for single item mode) capability_level: Capability level of the threat actor (required for single item mode) motivations: Motivations of the threat actor (required for single item mode) resources: Resources available to the threat actor (required for single item mode) description: Description of the threat actor priority: Priority of the threat actor (1-10, 0 means not ranked) relevance_score: Relevance score of the threat actor (0.0-1.0) is_relevant: Whether the threat actor is relevant to the system items: Optional list of threat actor dicts for batch operation

Returns: A confirmation message with the threat actor ID(s)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName of the threat actor (required for single item mode)
typeNoType of the threat actor (e.g., 'Insider', 'External', 'Nation-state') (required for single item mode)
itemsNoOptional list of threat actors to add in batch. Each dict should contain 'name', 'type', 'capability_level', 'motivations', 'resources', and optionally other fields. When provided, individual parameters are ignored.
priorityNoPriority of the threat actor (1-10, 0 means not ranked)
resourcesNoResources available to the threat actor (Limited, Moderate, Extensive) (required for single item mode)
descriptionNoDescription of the threat actor
is_relevantNoWhether the threat actor is relevant to the system
motivationsNoMotivations of the threat actor (e.g., 'Financial', 'Political', 'Espionage') (required for single item mode)
relevance_scoreNoRelevance score of the threat actor (0.0-1.0)
capability_levelNoCapability level of the threat actor (Low, Medium, High) (required for single item mode)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses batch behavior via the 'items' parameter, notes that items mode ignores individual parameters (in the schema), and states the return value ('confirmation message with the threat actor ID(s)'). It does not cover permissions or duplicate handling, but the core behavioral surface is well described.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a short summary, then explains usage modes, parameters, and returns in a structured format. While the Args list duplicates schema descriptions, it is organized logically and each section serves a purpose for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, batch mode, output schema), the description adequately covers the main usage scenarios, required fields per mode, and return type. It could mention error conditions or validation, but the core completeness is sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into single-item vs batch contexts and explicitly marking fields as 'required for single item mode.' This clarifies when each parameter is needed beyond the raw schema definitions.

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's function: 'Add a new threat actor' and 'adds one or more threat actors to the threat model.' It specifies the resource (threat actor) and verb (add), and distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like update_threat_actor, list_threat_actors, and delete_threat_actor.

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?

It provides explicit guidance for two usage modes: single item (provide name, type, capability_level, motivations, resources directly) and batch (use 'items' parameter). While it does not name alternatives like update_threat_actor for modifications, the 'add' semantics and clear mode distinctions give solid context.

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/awslabs/threat-modeling-mcp-server'

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