Skip to main content
Glama
Threat Modeling MCP Server

Threat Modeling MCP Server

manage_threat_actors

Manage threat actor records and run actor analysis for structured threat modeling. Add, update, list, or delete actors and execute analysis to assess risks.

Instructions

Manage threat actors and run the actor analysis.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_threat_actors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsNoBatch actor records for add or update
actionYesOperation: describe, add, update, list, get, delete, analyze, reset, or clear
valuesNoFields for one actor or optional list filters
item_idNoThreat actor ID for one get, update, or delete
item_idsNoThreat actor IDs for batch delete

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says almost nothing. 'Manage' implies mutation, but the description never mentions that the action enum includes destructive operations (delete, reset, clear), nor does it disclose side effects, permissions, or irreversibility. The only behavioral hint is 'run the actor analysis', which is minimal.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the resource name. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, given the tool's nine actions and batch parameters.

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?

The tool is moderately complex: nine actions, batch add/update/delete, and an output schema. While the output schema relieves the need to describe return values, the description omits any explanation of action semantics, batch behavior, or destructive operations, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for a nontrivial tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the action enum and the purpose of items, values, item_id, and item_ids. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the structured schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the resource ('threat actors') and mentions 'actor analysis', which gives a rough idea of scope. However, 'Manage' is a generic verb that does not distinguish this tool from siblings like manage_threats or manage_architecture, and it fails to convey the nine distinct actions (describe, add, update, list, get, delete, analyze, reset, clear) the tool actually performs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the action enum alone which operation to select and when; the description offers no routing logic whatsoever.

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