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 describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a query tool with zero 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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters, though it could be more concise by integrating parameter details into the main description.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, errors) and usage context. It's adequate for basic use but insufficient for robust agent decision-making without additional inference.

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 context for all three parameters: 'software_stix_id' specifies it's for lookup, 'domain' lists valid values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), and 'include_description' explains its effect on output. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could detail STIX ID format or domain implications more.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all campaigns that use software' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('campaigns'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_campaigns' by focusing on campaigns related to software usage. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_campaigns_attributed_to_group' or 'get_campaigns_using_technique', which are similar relationship queries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_all_campaigns' (for unfiltered lists) or 'get_campaigns_using_technique' (for a different relationship type), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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