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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the domain parameter and include_description flag but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. It's efficient with no redundant sentences, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating parameter info more seamlessly).

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 is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, output, and sibling differentiation. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for safe invocation.

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 adds meaningful context for both parameters: it specifies the domain options ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics') and clarifies that include_description controls output inclusion with a default of False. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail parameter constraints beyond the listed enums.

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 action ('Get all software') and resource ('in the MITRE ATT&CK framework'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_software_by_alias' or 'get_software_used_by_group', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_software_by_alias' or 'get_software_used_by_group'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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