Skip to main content
Glama
threadlinqs-cmd

Intel Threadlinqs MCP

D3FEND Posture

get_d3fend_posture
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve D3FEND countermeasures for a threat's ATT&CK techniques, mapping offensive techniques to digital artifacts and defensive tactics. Identify what would have stopped the threat by its threat ID.

Instructions

Get the defensive twin of a threat's ATT&CK mapping: offensive technique to digital artifact to D3FEND countermeasure, plus coverage by defensive tactic. Use to answer 'what would have stopped this'. COVERAGE: 197 of 1,891 threats carry a mapping, so absence is common and is not an error — a threat that exists with no mapping answers 200 with an empty mappings and a reason saying whether it has no techniques at all or techniques the ontology has no countermeasure for; only an unknown threat id answers 404. IMPORTANT: this is a deterministic projection of the threat's techniques through a static ontology — two threats sharing countermeasures almost always just share techniques, so never treat countermeasure overlap as independent correlation evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRaw technique x countermeasure pairs in `mappings` (default 60, max 500). `countermeasures` always rolls up ALL pairs regardless, so the default loses no information — raise this only if you need the individual pairings.
threat_idYesThreat ID (e.g. TL-2026-1916)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoTOTAL technique x countermeasure pairs, not the number returned in `mappings`.
errorNoPresent only on 404 ('threat not found'). A threat that exists but has no mapping answers 200, never 404.
caveatNoStates that this is a deterministic projection of threat_mitre, not independent evidence.
reasonNoPresent only on the 200-with-zero-mappings case: says WHY there is no posture (no techniques mapped vs techniques with no countermeasure).
coverageNo
mappingsNo
threat_idYes
detail_hintNo
countermeasuresNo
mappings_returnedNo
mappings_truncatedNoTrue when `mappings` was capped; `countermeasures` still covers every pair.
countermeasure_countNo
offensive_technique_countNoDistinct ATT&CK techniques on the threat — the denominator the projection ran over.
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the deterministic nature of the projection, the 197-of-1,891 coverage rate, the 200-with-empty-mappings case, why that absence is not an error, and when a 404 is actually returned. This is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs beyond annotations.

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?

Every sentence in the description carries load: the core purpose, the coverage limitation, the empty-vs-notch response, and the interpretive caveat. The COVERAGE and IMPORTANT markers make the longer text easier to parse, and the most actionable guidance appears first.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With only one required param and a complete output schema, the description still covers the full behavior: the default result, rare-empty state, the 404-only condition, and the fatal conclusion. There is no ambiguity left for an agent in interpreting either a result or an error from this 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%, and the schema already documents threat_id format and limit's default, max, and behavior. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource: the defensive twin mapping from ATT&CK technique to artifact to D3FEND countermeasure, with coverage by defensive tactic. The scope is unique among the sibling tools and directly answers 'what would have stopped this'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says to use it for 'what would have stopped this' and gives clear behavior expectations: absence of a mapping is common and not an error, and countermeasure overlap must not be treated as correlation evidence. It does not name any alternative sibling tool, so the 'vs alternatives' guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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/threadlinqs-cmd/intelthreadlinqs-mcp'

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