Skip to main content
Glama
Threat Modeling MCP Server

Threat Modeling MCP Server

inspect_data_models

List all enum models or retrieve accepted values for one model, helping users validate inputs and choose valid options during threat modeling.

Instructions

List enum models or inspect the accepted values for one model.

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": "inspect_data_models"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_nameNoEnum model to inspect; omit to list all available models

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' and 'inspect' strongly imply a non-mutating read, which is the key signal an agent needs, but permissions, side effects, and whether results are cached or static are unstated. An output schema exists, so return structure does not need to be described here.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and the alternative mode, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with a full output schema and no annotations, this covers what the tool does in both of its modes. Only the absence of guidance about what these enum models represent, or when to prefer this over sibling tools, keeps it short of complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's meaning (omit to list all, supply a name to inspect one) is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that duality, adding no format hints, casing rules, or error behavior for an unrecognized model name.

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 gives a specific verb pair and resource: list enum models, or inspect accepted values for one model. That cleanly separates the two modes of a single tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling manage_* tools, but the read-only 'inspect/list' framing distinguishes it by implication.

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 two modes imply usage (call with no model_name to enumerate, call with a name to drill into values), and the schema repeats the omit-to-list rule. There is no explicit statement of when an agent should reach for this tool versus the manage_* siblings, or what to do with the returned values.

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