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 full burden. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more streamlined.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and output information. It's minimally adequate for a simple read tool but incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'domain' specifies allowed values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics') and 'include_description' explains its effect on output. This goes beyond the schema's basic type information, though it doesn't cover all possible semantic nuances.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all campaigns in the MITRE ATT&CK framework'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaigns_attributed_to_group' or 'get_campaigns_by_alias', which would require a 5.

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. With many sibling tools focused on campaigns (e.g., 'get_campaigns_attributed_to_group'), there's no indication of when this broad 'get all' tool is preferred over more specific queries.

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