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 full burden. It states the action ('Get campaigns') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key 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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Each parameter explanation is brief and relevant, with no redundant information. However, the formatting with line breaks could be slightly more polished for readability.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and output details. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'alias' is explained as 'Alias to find associated campaigns for', 'domain' clarifies allowed values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), and 'include_description' notes its purpose and default. This effectively documents parameters 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 ('campaigns'), specifying the lookup mechanism ('by their alias'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_campaigns' by focusing on alias-based retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other alias-based tools like 'get_groups_by_alias' or 'get_software_by_alias' beyond the resource type.

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 for retrieving campaigns (e.g., 'get_all_campaigns', 'get_campaigns_attributed_to_group', 'get_campaigns_using_software'), the description lacks context on appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to other campaign-fetching methods.

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