MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a simple lookup, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The description mentions output inclusion options but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more integrated rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' section.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks important context. It explains what the tool does and its parameters, but doesn't describe the return format, potential errors, or how this fits within the broader ATT&CK framework query ecosystem represented by sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'domain' with its valid values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics') and 'include_description' with its purpose and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain the implications of each domain choice.

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 data sources in the MITRE ATT&CK framework', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_datacomponents' or 'get_all_assets', which would require more specific scope clarification for a perfect score.

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 available (like get_all_datacomponents, get_all_techniques, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific 'data sources' retrieval is appropriate versus other ATT&CK framework queries.

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