Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Latent Defense MCP Server

Latent Defense MCP Server

Official
by latent-defense
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_attack_paths

List security attack paths filtered by status or risk score to triage infrastructure vulnerabilities.

Instructions

List attack paths, optionally filtered by status or risk score.

Status values: new, acknowledged, validating, validated, escalated, ticketed, closed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_attack_paths"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo
min_risk_scoreNo
limitNo
offsetNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'list' and lists status values. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond default semantics.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and optional filters. Status list is efficiently formatted. Every part earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Tool has 4 optional parameters and no required ones; output schema exists (not shown). Description covers purpose and two filters but omits pagination parameters. Moderately complete but missing key usage details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. Description adds meaning for 'status' (lists valid values) and 'min_risk_score' (filter), but ignores 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. Incomplete coverage of schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (attack paths) with optional filters. The sibling tools include get_attack_path and list_branch_attack_paths, implying broader scope, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for filtered listing but does not specify when to use alternatives like get_attack_path for a single path or list_branch_attack_paths for branch-specific queries. No when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools