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_match

Match a threat model against your infrastructure graph to identify node similarities via cosine scores, discover BFS attack paths using energy scores, and expose implicit edges.

Instructions

Match the threat model against the real infrastructure graph. Returns a Mermaid diagram with node matches (cosine scores), BFS paths (energy scores), and implicit edges.

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": "oracle_tm_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
top_kNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the output format (Mermaid diagram with specific scores) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor any auth or rate limit context.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action. It is concise and to the point, though it could include a brief note on the parameter.

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 the existence of an output schema (not provided), the description gives a good overview of the return value. It explains the components of the diagram (node matches, BFS paths, implicit edges). However, it lacks context about the parameter and prerequisites.

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

Parameters1/5

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

There is one parameter (top_k) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what top_k controls, leaving the agent guessing. This is a significant gap.

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 the tool matches a threat model against infrastructure graph, distinguishing it from other oracle_tm_* tools (which add nodes/edges, load templates, etc.). It specifies the output format (Mermaid diagram with cosine scores, energy scores, implicit edges).

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_match_refine. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having a threat model loaded) or when not to use it.

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