Skip to main content
Glama
awslabs

Threat Modeling MCP Server

Official
by awslabs

update_threat

Update existing threats in your threat model with new attributes like source, action, and severity. Supports single or batch updates to keep threat data accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing threat. Supports batch operations via the 'items' parameter.

This tool updates one or more existing threats in the threat model. IMPORTANT: Each text field must be 200 characters or fewer to comply with the Threat Composer schema. For single item: provide id and fields to update directly. For batch: provide a list of threat dicts in the 'items' parameter (each must include 'id').

Args: ctx: MCP context for logging and error handling id: ID of the threat to update (required for single item mode) threat_source: New source of the threat, max 200 chars prerequisites: New prerequisites for the threat, max 200 chars threat_action: New action performed by the threat, max 200 chars threat_impact: New impact of the threat, max 200 chars category: New STRIDE category of the threat severity: New severity of the threat likelihood: New likelihood of the threat status: New status of the threat affected_components: New list of component IDs affected by the threat affected_assets: New list of asset IDs affected by the threat tags: New list of tags for the threat items: Optional list of threat dicts for batch update

Returns: A confirmation message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
tagsNo
itemsNo
statusNo
categoryNo
severityNo
likelihoodNo
prerequisitesNo
threat_actionNo
threat_impactNo
threat_sourceNo
affected_assetsNo
affected_componentsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses batch operations, the 200-character limit, and that each batch item must include an id. However, it does not explain behavior for invalid IDs, partial batch failures, or whether omitted fields are left unchanged. It also only promises a 'confirmation message' without detailing its contents.

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 lengthy but organized with a summary and Args section. Every sentence provides useful information, though it could rely on the schema for parameter names if coverage were higher. Critical operational details are front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters and batch mode, but the description covers the main modes, the character limit, and batch prerequisites. It omits edge-case behaviors like non-existent IDs, merge semantics, and batch failure handling, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a detailed Args section describing each parameter's purpose, constraints (e.g., max 200 chars for text fields), and required status (id required in single mode). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing threat' and 'updates one or more existing threats in the threat model,' using a specific verb (update) and resource (threat). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_threat, delete_threat, list_threats, and get_threat.

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 usage guidance: 'For single item: provide id and fields to update directly. For batch: provide a list of threat dicts in the items parameter.' Also highlights the 200-character constraint. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the single/batch instructions clarify when each mode should be used.

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