Skip to main content
Glama

attack_paths

Query BloodHound Enterprise to retrieve attack path findings, trends, and types, and manage risk acceptance for identified attack paths.

Instructions

Query BloodHound Enterprise attack path data.

info_type options:
    domain_findings - export attack path findings for a domain (needs: domain_id)
    finding_trends - list attack path finding trends
    types - list all attack path types
    start_analysis - start attack path analysis
    details - get all attack path findings with details
    domain_available_types - list attack path types available in a domain (needs: domain_id)
    domain_details - list attack path details for a domain (needs: domain_id)
    domain_sparkline - list attack path sparkline values for a domain (needs: domain_id)
    acceptance - update attack path risk acceptance (needs: attack_path_id, acceptance_json)

args:
    info_type: what to retrieve or update (default: details)
    domain_id: Domain object ID for domain-scoped attack path endpoints
    attack_path_id: Attack path finding ID for risk acceptance
    acceptance_json: JSON string or object accepted by the BHE risk acceptance API
    finding_name: Case-insensitive filter for finding/type/name fields
    source_name: Case-insensitive filter for source fields
    target_name: Case-insensitive filter for target fields
    environment_id: Case-insensitive filter for environment/domain fields
    accepted: Filter findings by accepted/risk acceptance state

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
acceptedNo
domain_idNo
info_typeNodetails
source_nameNo
target_nameNo
finding_nameNo
attack_path_idNo
environment_idNo
acceptance_jsonNo
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that 'acceptance' updates risk acceptance and 'start_analysis' initiates analysis, indicating non-read operations, but it doesn't discuss side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return behavior. This is moderate disclosure but leaves important behavioral unknowns for a tool with mutation capabilities.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose and then using organized lists for info_type options and arguments. It is dense but not bloated, and every line serves to explain a mode or parameter. It's slightly lengthy due to the tool's complexity, but the structure makes it easy to navigate.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all operation modes and parameter semantics, which is sufficient for correct selection and invocation of most options. However, it lacks details on the shape of returned data, pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps for a fully complete understanding.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining all 9 parameters, including their purpose, required associations (e.g., domain_id for domain-scoped endpoints), filter case-insensitivity, and type for acceptance_json. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though some parameter descriptions remain terse.

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 'Query BloodHound Enterprise attack path data' and then enumerates nine specific operation types via info_type, covering finding export, trends, analysis, and risk acceptance. This makes the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous, and distinguishes it from general graph analysis or Cypher query tools among the siblings.

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 usage context for each info_type, indicating required parameters per mode (e.g., 'domain_findings - needs: domain_id') and noting the default value for info_type (details). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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/err0n-0x2A/bhe_mcp'

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