Skip to main content
Glama
awslabs

Threat Modeling MCP Server

Official
by awslabs

update_threat_actor

Update an existing threat actor's details, including name, type, capabilities, motivations, and relevance. Supports batch updates for multiple actors simultaneously.

Instructions

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

This tool updates one or more existing threat actors in the threat model. For single item: provide id and fields to update directly. For batch: provide a list of threat actor dicts in the 'items' parameter (each must include 'id').

Args: ctx: MCP context for logging and error handling id: ID of the threat actor to update (required for single item mode) name: New name of the threat actor type: New type of the threat actor capability_level: New capability level of the threat actor motivations: New motivations of the threat actor resources: New resources available to the threat actor description: New description of the threat actor priority: New priority of the threat actor (1-10) relevance_score: New relevance score of the threat actor (0.0-1.0) is_relevant: New relevance status of the threat actor items: Optional list of threat actor dicts for batch update

Returns: A confirmation message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoID of the threat actor to update (required for single item mode)
nameNoNew name of the threat actor
typeNoNew type of the threat actor
itemsNoOptional list of threat actors to update in batch. Each dict must contain 'id' and any fields to update. When provided, individual parameters are ignored.
priorityNoNew priority of the threat actor (1-10)
resourcesNoNew resources available to the threat actor
descriptionNoNew description of the threat actor
is_relevantNoNew relevance status of the threat actor
motivationsNoNew motivations of the threat actor
relevance_scoreNoNew relevance score of the threat actor (0.0-1.0)
capability_levelNoNew capability level of the threat actor

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses batch behavior, the requirement for 'id' in items, and returns a confirmation message. However, it does not detail error handling, partial failures, or whether omitted fields are left unchanged.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured but verbose, repeating the schema's parameter documentation in an Args block. The batch vs single guidance is valuable, but the full argument list is redundant with the input schema and could be trimmed.

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 11 parameters and two usage modes, the description covers mode selection, required fields, and the return type. It does not discuss error scenarios or partial update behavior, but an output schema exists and likely covers return details.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning beyond the schema: id is required for single mode, and items must contain 'id'. It also clarifies that individual parameters are ignored when items is provided (partially stated in 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('threat actor'), and clearly distinguishes single vs batch operations. This separates it from sibling tools like add_threat_actor, delete_threat_actor, list_threat_actors, etc.

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 explicitly explains two usage modes: single item (provide id and fields) and batch (provide items list with id). It also notes that each batch item must include 'id'. However, it does not mention alternatives like set_threat_actor_relevance or set_threat_actor_priority for field-specific updates.

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