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. While it mentions the MITRE ATT&CK framework context, it doesn't describe what 'parent techniques' means operationally, whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a structured parameter section. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated. It's front-loaded with the main purpose first.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context about what 'parent techniques' are, how results are structured, and when to use versus siblings. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 documents both parameters with clear semantics: 'domain' specifies the MITRE domain with allowed values, and 'include_description' explains what the boolean flag controls. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by providing all necessary parameter meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 parent techniques in the MITRE ATT&CK framework'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_techniques' or 'get_parent_technique_of_subtechnique', which would be needed 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 like 'get_all_techniques' and 'get_parent_technique_of_subtechnique', there's no indication of how this tool differs in usage context or when it's preferred over others.

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