Skip to main content
Glama
rad-security

RAD Security

Official
by rad-security

list_threat_vectors

Identify and retrieve potential security vulnerabilities in Kubernetes clusters and cloud environments by analyzing threat vectors.

Instructions

List threat vectors

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clustersIdsNoCluster ids to check for threat vectors
namespacesNoNamespaces to check for threat vectors
resource_uidNoThreat vector associated with this resource
pageNoPage number to retrieve
page_sizeNoNumber of items per page

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that implements the logic for listing threat vectors by making an authenticated API request to the RAD Security backend with provided filters.
    export async function listThreatVectors(
      client: RadSecurityClient,
      clustersIds: string[] | undefined,
      namespaces: string[] | undefined,
      resourceUid: string | undefined,
      page: number = 1,
      pageSize: number = 20
    ): Promise<any> {
      const params = {
        associated_with_resource_uid: resourceUid,
        clusters: clustersIds,
        namespaces: namespaces,
        statuses: "Open",
        page_size: pageSize,
        page: page,
      };
      const response = await client.makeRequest(
        `/accounts/${client.getAccountId()}/threat_vector_instances/v2`,
        params
      );
    
      // Return the transformed response
      return response;
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the list_threat_vectors tool, including optional filters for clusters, namespaces, resource, and pagination.
    export const listThreatVectorsSchema = z.object({
      clustersIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("Cluster ids to check for threat vectors"),
      namespaces: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("Namespaces to check for threat vectors"),
      resource_uid: z.string().optional().describe("Threat vector associated with this resource"),
      page: z.number().optional().default(1).describe("Page number to retrieve"),
      page_size: z.number().optional().default(20).describe("Number of items per page"),
    });
  • src/index.ts:413-421 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListTools MCP handler, where the tool is conditionally included in the tools list with its name, description, and schema if the 'threats' toolkit is enabled.
    ...(isToolkitEnabled("threats", toolkitFilters)
      ? [
          {
            name: "list_threat_vectors",
            description: "List threat vectors",
            inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(threats.listThreatVectorsSchema),
          },
        ]
      : []),
  • src/index.ts:1223-1240 (registration)
    Tool dispatch registration in the CallTool MCP handler switch statement, which parses input arguments using the schema and invokes the listThreatVectors handler function.
    case "list_threat_vectors": {
      const args = threats.listThreatVectorsSchema.parse(
        request.params.arguments
      );
      const response = await threats.listThreatVectors(
        client,
        args.clustersIds,
        args.namespaces,
        args.resource_uid,
        args.page,
        args.page_size
      );
      return {
        content: [
          { type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2) },
        ],
      };
    }
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what rate limits might apply, what format the results come in, or whether the listing is paginated (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place by providing necessary context. Good conciseness balances brevity with information density, but here there's insufficient information to justify even the minimal length.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and the rich sibling tool ecosystem, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what threat vectors are in this context, how they relate to other resources, what the output looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably returns security-related data, this leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'List threat vectors' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what threat vectors are in this system, what format they come in, or what scope is covered. While it does contain a verb ('List') and resource ('threat vectors'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this from similar listing tools in the sibling set.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like list_security_findings, list_cloud_resources, and list_k8s_resources, there's no indication of how threat vectors relate to these other resources or when an agent should choose this specific listing tool. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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/rad-security/mcp-server'

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