MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves assets but doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point-like 'Args' section that efficiently explains parameters. There's no unnecessary information, and every sentence serves a functional purpose in clarifying the tool's use.

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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but misses key behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, and usage constraints. For a tool with no structured metadata, it should provide more context to be fully adequate.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: 'domain' is described as 'Domain name ('ics')' and 'include_description' as 'Whether to include description in the output (default is False)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage and only provides titles and types. The parameter explanations are clear and helpful for understanding their purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all assets in the MITRE ATT&CK framework (ICS domain only)'. This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('assets'), and scope ('ICS domain only'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_assets_targeted_by_technique', which focuses on assets targeted by specific techniques rather than retrieving all assets.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_assets_targeted_by_technique' or 'get_objects_by_type' that might overlap in functionality. There's also no information about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is required or if there are any limitations on usage frequency.

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