Skip to main content
Glama
unstrike

attackforge-mcp

by unstrike
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vulnerabilities

Create, retrieve, update, and bulk-manage AttackForge security findings by project, asset, or custom field, including summaries and full details.

Instructions

Manage AttackForge vulnerabilities.

Actions: list — GET /vulnerabilities (summary only; optional: project_id, limit default 25) Prefer project_id scope — global list can return 500+ items. Returns total + has_more. Use get for full text fields. get — GET /vulnerability/:id (requires: id; returns full detail) list_by_asset — GET /vulnerabilities/asset (requires: asset_name) create — POST /vulnerability (requires: fields incl. project_id) update — PUT /vulnerability/:id (requires: id, fields) bulk_create — POST /vulnerability/bulk (requires: project_id, items=[{...},...]) summarize_custom_fields — Scan all vulns in a project and return each custom field key with its distinct non-empty values. (requires: project_id) Optional: fields={"key": "apmid"} to filter to one field. Use this to discover what custom fields an org uses before querying by value — works for any AF instance, not just T-Mobile. list_by_custom_field — Return slimmed vuln summaries where a custom field matches a value. (requires: project_id, fields={"key": "...", "value": "..."}) Optional: limit (default 25).

Key fields for create: projectId (camelCase, required), title (required), affected_asset_name (required), priority (required), description (required), attack_scenario (required), remediation_recommendation (required), steps_to_reproduce (required), tags, notes=[{note, type}], is_zeroday, is_visible, custom_fields=[{key, value}], linked_testcases, custom_tags=[{name, value}]. Key fields for update: project_id (snake_case), title, priority, status, likelihood_of_exploitation, description, attack_scenario, remediation_recommendation, steps_to_reproduce, tags, notes=[{note, type}], is_zeroday, is_visible, is_deleted, custom_fields=[{key, value}], linked_testcases, custom_tags=[{name, value}].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
itemsNo
limitNo
actionYes
fieldsNo
asset_nameNo
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: list returns summary-only plus total/has_more, get returns full detail, and global list can return 500+ items. It omits permission/auth requirements and the destructive/irreversible nature of create/update/bulk_create.

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?

Long but well-structured as an action/requirements table with front-loaded action names; nearly every line adds routing or field-requirement value. Minor redundancy in the two 'Key fields' blocks, which repeat tags/notes/custom_fields shapes.

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 10-action multiplexed tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action routing, required inputs, and return shape hints sufficiently to invoke correctly. It would be stronger with auth/error and mutation-impact notes, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by listing required fields per action and flagging the camelCase projectId (create) vs snake_case project_id (update) discrepancy, which is not derivable from the schema. Remaining params like limit, tags, and items structure get only partial treatment.

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?

It states the resource (AttackForge vulnerabilities) and enumerates ten concrete actions with their HTTP verb/path, so an agent can map intent to action without guessing. Sibling tools (projects, testcases, assets) are clearly not overlapping.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing guidance per action: prefer project_id scope to avoid 500+ item global lists, use get for full text fields, and summarize_custom_fields should be used first to discover custom field keys before list_by_custom_field. When-to-use and sequencing are spelled out rather than implied.

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