MITRE ATT&CK techniques for DORA TLPT / TIBER-EU penetration testing. Maps to DORA Art. 26.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results 1-20 (default: 10) | |
| tactic | No | Filter by tactic: Initial Access, Lateral Movement, Impact, Persistence, etc. | |
| keyword | No | Search keyword e.g. 'ransomware', 'phishing', 'credential' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. However, it only states what the tool is about, not how it behaves (e.g., read-only, pagination, return format, permissions). The description is purely domain-focused and omits any operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is very concise. It front-loads the main subject ('MITRE ATT&CK techniques') and adds relevant regulatory context. However, it is so terse that it reads more as a noun phrase than a functional instruction, limiting its completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 optional parameters. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, whether it lists/searchs, or how to combine filters. It is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent to use effectively without further inspection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes all three parameters (limit, tactic, keyword) with explicit descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides the needed semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (MITRE ATT&CK techniques) and the context (DORA TLPT/TIBER-EU), which distinguishes it from sibling tools, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'search'. This makes the tool's action somewhat vague and relies on inference from the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cve_search or threat_actors. The context mentions DORA TLPT/TIBER-EU, but there is no explicit statement about when this tool is preferred or when other tools are more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.