Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Latent Defense MCP Server

Latent Defense MCP Server

Official
by latent-defense
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

oracle_tm_add_edge

Add relationships between components in a threat model by specifying source, target, and edge type.

Instructions

Add an edge to the threat model.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "edge_type": "<edge_type>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "oracle_tm_add_edge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYes
targetYes
edge_typeYes
descriptionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether edges can be duplicated, if source/target nodes must exist, or any side effects like overwriting. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure and does not use the limited space to provide additional value beyond the basic purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal to be considered complete. Missing context such as prerequisites, effects on the graph, and edge type constraints.

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%, and the description adds no clarification beyond parameter names. While names like 'source' and 'target' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not elaborate on expected formats, constraints, or relationships.

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?

Description clearly states the tool adds an edge to a threat model, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like oracle_tm_add_node, though it could provide more context about what an edge represents.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oracle_tm_add_node or oracle_tm_clear. The agent gets no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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