Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Threat Modeling MCP Server

Threat Modeling MCP Server

by residentevilrenz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

manage_workflow

Plan, guide, inspect, configure, and advance a phase-based threat modeling workflow, set project directories, track status/progress, and validate code evidence.

Instructions

Plan, guide, inspect, configure, or advance the workflow.

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_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
phaseNoPhase for action='guidance': current, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7.5, 8, or 9
actionYesOperation: describe, plan, guidance, status, set_project, advance, or progress
directoryNoProject directory for plan, guidance, or set_project
auto_validate_codeNoFor action='plan', include Phase 7.5 when code is detected; defaults to true

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing. 'Advance' and 'configure' imply state mutation and 'set_project' likely writes files, but the description says nothing about side effects, persistence, permissions, or whether changes are reversible; the read-only actions (status, describe) are indistinguishable from mutating ones.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and well-structured; the problem is information poverty rather than verbosity.

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?

This is a high-complexity, seven-action tool with mutating operations and no annotations, so the description should explain the action landscape and its side effects. It does neither; only the presence of an output schema spares it from being completely opaque.

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 every parameter carries its own description and enum constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how phase, directory, or auto_validate_code interact, but the schema already does that job adequately.

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 a resource ('the workflow') and a set of verbs that roughly map to the action enum (plan, guidance, status, set_project, advance), but 'progress' and 'describe' are not covered and the five-verb laundry list reads as an omnibus rather than a specific capability. It gives no hint about how this differs from siblings like manage_code_validation or manage_architecture, which also operate on workflow phases.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this or a sibling tool for a given intent, and the choice among the seven actions is left entirely to the schema enum.

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