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 lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of campaign objects), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description only covers basic parameter usage without operational 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, though the Args formatting could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It explains parameters but misses behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, error handling, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a query tool in a security context, more operational guidance is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate—and it does well by explaining all three parameters: 'group_stix_id' identifies the MITRE ATT&CK group, 'domain' specifies the domain name with valid values, and 'include_description' controls output inclusion with default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail STIX ID format or domain implications.

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 ('campaigns attributed to group'), specifying the relationship between campaigns and groups via STIX ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_campaigns' by focusing on attribution to a specific group, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other campaign-related tools like 'get_campaigns_by_alias' or 'get_campaigns_using_technique'.

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 implies usage when needing campaigns linked to a specific MITRE ATT&CK group via STIX ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_campaigns_by_alias' or 'get_campaigns_using_technique'. It mentions the domain parameter but doesn't explain why or when to select different domains.

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