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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the domain parameter and include_description option but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., list format, structure), whether it's paginated, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that fetches potentially large datasets.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized without wasted words, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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 (fetching all subtechniques from a framework), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters well but doesn't describe the return format, which is critical for understanding how to use the results. This is adequate for basic understanding but leaves important 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 provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'domain' specifies the allowed values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics') and 'include_description' explains its effect on output. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover default values explicitly mentioned in the 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 subtechniques in the MITRE ATT&CK framework', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subtechniques_of_technique' or 'get_all_techniques', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_techniques' or 'get_subtechniques_of_technique'. The description only states what it does without context about its appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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