Skip to main content
Glama
Threat Modeling MCP Server

Threat Modeling MCP Server

manage_threats

Create, update, link, and assess threats and mitigations in a threat model, including batch residual-risk assessment and cleanup of records.

Instructions

Manage threats, mitigations, and their links.

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_threats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsNoBatch records for add, update, link, or atomic residual-risk assessment
actionYesOperation: describe, add, update, list, get, delete, link, unlink, assess, or clear
valuesNoFields for one record, relationship, or optional list filters
item_idNoThreat or mitigation ID for one get, update, or delete
sectionNoThreat-model section: threats, mitigations, or allall
item_idsNoThreat or mitigation IDs for batch delete

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about destructive actions (delete/clear/unlink), batch behavior, linking semantics, or assessment behavior. "Manage" alone gives an agent no warning about mutation or irreversible operations.

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?

The single sentence is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with ten actions, batch inputs, and linking semantics. It lacks the structure needed to front-load the operation model or guide action selection.

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?

For a complex multi-action tool with no annotations, the description is not complete enough: it does not explain action semantics, batch usage, destructive operations, or link/unlink behavior. Although an output schema exists, the tool's operational surface remains essentially undocumented in prose.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters, including the action enum and batch inputs. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 managed resources (threats, mitigations, and links), but the verb "Manage" is too generic to distinguish the tool from sibling management tools. It does not specify the supported operations even though the schema lists ten actions.

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 explanation of how the ten actions should be selected. The description merely restates the domain.

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