PerspectiveGraph

Give the full kill chain for one route: every hop, the relationship type, that hop's probability, where the probability came from (kev/epss/runtime are observed evidence; cvss/severity/heuristic are estimates), and the MITRE ATT&CK technique. Use this before explaining or acting on a route - the hop provenance is what tells you which parts of the story are evidence and which are assumption.

Summarize the environment: how many attack routes are open, how many are runtime-confirmed, how many assets and relationships are mapped, and which sensitive assets an attacker can currently reach. Start here to orient before enumerating anything: it also gives the names the other tools take - the sensitive assets routes_to_target accepts and the applications `app` arguments accept.

Report how well the engine's probabilities have matched reality, measured against recorded red-team or BAS outcomes: the verdict (well-calibrated / calibrated-on-average / overconfident / underconfident / insufficient-data; calibrated-on-average means only the average matches, so no individual score may be quoted as a probability), the predicted-versus-observed rates, and what to do about the gap. Call this before quoting any score as a probability. If it reports insufficient-data, the numbers are expert estimates and must be presented as the model's own estimate, not as odds. It also reports discrimination - whether the score, and separately the triage Priority order, put confirmed paths above refuted ones (AUC with a 95% interval). Do not present the ranking as evidence of which path is most dangerous unless priorityDiscrimination reads 'discriminates'; 'insufficient-data' or 'indistinguishable-from-chance' means the order has not been shown to beat a coin, and must be said so.

List the ranked routes from internet exposure to a sensitive asset, highest triage priority first. `score` is the modelled end-to-end exploit probability and `priority` (0-100, banded P1/P2/P3) is the triage order that also weighs corroboration and target sensitivity. IMPORTANT: these probabilities are expert estimates, not measurements calibrated against real outcomes - call get_score_trust before presenting any of them as a probability, and prefer the ranking over the absolute values. It returns one page: when `nextOffset` is not null more routes exist, and passing it as `offset` returns the next ones. Routes an analyst has suppressed are listed too, marked `suppressed`.

Return the remediation plan: the fewest changes that remove the most risk, choke points first, each with the share of critical-path risk it eliminates and how many routes it cuts. This is usually the right answer to 'what should we do' - a hundred routes typically collapse into a handful of changes.

Enumerate the k best distinct routes that reach a named sensitive asset. Answers 'how many ways in are there, and do they share a choke point' - which single-path views hide. Cutting a hop that every route traverses removes them all; cutting one that appears in a single route removes one. Each route comes with its hops, ready to hand to simulate_fix. It returns the best `k` and has no further page.

Full-text search across indexed assets and findings by name, CVE id, or keyword. Use it to resolve a name a human mentioned into the node ids the other tools take. It needs OpenSearch on the deployment: where that is off it answers with an error saying so, never with an empty list, and get_posture and list_attack_paths are then where names come from. It returns the best `size` matches and has no further page: narrow the query instead.

Ask what actually happens if specific relationships are cut: re-runs the whole simulation with those edges removed and reports how many routes disappear and how the compromise probability moves. This is the tool to reach for before recommending a change - it is a deterministic counterfactual over the real graph, not an estimate, so it settles 'would this help' instead of arguing about it. It changes nothing: the graph, the environment and every recorded decision stay as they are, so it needs no confirmation and can be repeated freely.