SiteCheck Web Intel

Looks up one MITRE ATT&CK technique on its official public

security_mitre_attck_matrix

Read-only

Looks up one MITRE ATT&CK technique (e.g. T1059 or T1059.001) on its official public page: its name, the tactic-level summary text and the page title. Reads one page per call; it does not return the whole matrix or a technique's sub-techniques list. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "technique": "<technique>"
    },
    "name": "security_mitre_attck_matrix"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`technique`	Yes	ATT&CK technique ID such as T1059 or T1059.001 (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`title`	No
`source`	No
`summary`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`technique`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) and that failed calls are not charged — non-obvious cost behavior an agent must know before invoking. It also scopes the operation to a single page fetch, complementing openWorldHint with concrete semantics.

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?

One front-loaded sentence establishes what is returned and the scope exclusions, followed by a short cost sentence. No filler, and the least obvious detail (per-call pricing) is placed last where it reads as a caveat rather than burying the purpose.

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 an output schema covering return values, 100% parameter documentation, and read-only annotations supplied, the description still fills the remaining gaps: scope limits and paid-call cost behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide or call correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is documented as an ATT&CK technique ID with the same examples (T1059, T1059.001) the description cites. The description adds no format rules or fallback behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Looks up one MITRE ATT&CK technique"), lists the exact fields returned (name, tactic-level summary, page title), and explicitly bounds scope with "Reads one page per call; it does not return the whole matrix or a technique's sub-techniques list." An agent can tell precisely what it gets and what it won't.

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?

Clear negative guidance is given — no full-matrix enumeration and no sub-technique listing in one call — which effectively tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. What is missing is any named alternative (e.g. a CVE or exploit-feed sibling) the agent should switch to for matrix-wide or exploit-focused needs.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?