Skip to main content
Glama
luiacuaniello

PerspectiveGraph

by luiacuaniello
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

simulate_fix

Read-onlyIdempotent

Simulate cutting specified relationships to see how many attack routes disappear and whether compromise probability falls before recommending a fix.

Instructions

Ask what actually happens if specific relationships are cut: re-runs the whole simulation with those edges removed and reports how many routes disappear and how the compromise probability moves. This is the tool to reach for before recommending a change - it is a deterministic counterfactual over the real graph, not an estimate, so it settles 'would this help' instead of arguing about it. It changes nothing: the graph, the environment and every recorded decision stay as they are, so it needs no confirmation and can be repeated freely.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cutsYesRelationships to remove. Take each from a step of explain_attack_path (its from/to), or pass the `cut` of one of that route's remediations as it is.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whatIfNoThe same environment with the cuts applied, compared with it as it is.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.38.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / cuts / description
      Previous value: -"Relationships to remove. Use node ids from explain_attack_path steps (from/to)."New value: +"Relationships to remove. Take each from a step of explain_attack_path (its from/to), or pass the `cut` of one of that route's remediations as it is."
    • addedInput schema / properties / cuts / items / properties / type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional relationship type to cut: the step's `edgeType`, e.g. EXPOSES or HAS_PERMISSION. Omit to cut every relationship from `from` to `to`.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "whatIf": {
+      "description": "The same environment with the cuts applied, compared with it as it is.",
+      "properties": {
+        "after": {
+          "description": "The routes still open with the cuts applied.",
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "id": {
+                "description": "Route id.",
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              }
+            },
+            "type": [
+              "object",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "type": [
+            "array",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "afterRisk": {
+          "properties": {
+            "anyCompromiseProbability": {
+              "description": "Probability that at least one sensitive asset is reached with the cuts applied, 0-1. A modelled estimate, not a measured rate: see get_score_trust.",
+              "type": [
+                "number",
+                "null"
+              ]
+            }
+          },
+          "type": [
+            "object",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "beforeRisk": {
+          "properties": {
+            "anyCompromiseProbability": {
+              "description": "Probability that at least one sensitive asset is reached as things are, 0-1. A modelled estimate, not a measured rate: see get_score_trust.",
+              "type": [
+                "number",
+                "null"
+              ]
+            }
+          },
+          "type": [
+            "object",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "removedEdges": {
+          "description": "How many relationships the cuts matched. 0 means they matched nothing: check the node ids and the type.",
+          "type": [
+            "integer",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "riskReduction": {
+          "description": "How much the probability that any sensitive asset is reached drops, 0-1. It stays 0 while one asset is still reached in every trial.",
+          "type": [
+            "number",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds genuine value by characterizing the computation as a 'deterministic counterfactual... not an estimate' and noting it needs no confirmation and can be repeated freely, though parts of the 'changes nothing' claim overlap with the annotations.

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 what-it-does and when-to-use content is front-loaded and the sentences are purposeful. The final sentence ('It changes nothing... repeated freely') is somewhat redundant with the annotations and slightly over-explained, keeping it below a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description supplies the decision context, safety posture and input provenance an agent needs. It is essentially complete, with only minor redundancy as its flaw.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself already documents cuts, from/to and edgeType, including the reference to explain_attack_path. The description adds the notion that relationships are the objects being cut but no format or interpretation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('re-runs the whole simulation with those edges removed') and gives concrete outputs ('how many routes disappear and how the compromise probability moves'). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like list_fixes and explain_attack_path by being a counterfactual simulation rather than a listing or explanation.

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 gives explicit use context ('the tool to reach for before recommending a change') and clarifies the value proposition ('settles would this help instead of arguing about it'). It also points to explain_attack_path as the source of inputs, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name competing alternatives.

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