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. It states it 'gets all techniques' but doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 parameter explanations are concise and directly relevant. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the args section 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 covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately but lacks context about output format, performance considerations, and differentiation from siblings. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral and usage context.

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 semantic meaning for both parameters: 'domain' specifies the MITRE ATT&CK domain, and 'include_description' controls whether descriptions are included in output. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by explaining what each parameter does, though it doesn't detail the domain enum values beyond what's implied.

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 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_subtechniques' or 'get_techniques_by_tactic', 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. With many sibling tools that fetch techniques in different ways (e.g., filtered by tactic, platform, or group), the description lacks any context about when this unfiltered retrieval is appropriate compared to more specific queries.

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