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. It states the tool 'Get all campaigns' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 main purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args:' section efficiently lists parameters with brief explanations. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more integrated (e.g., embedding param details in prose).

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., read/write nature, performance) and output details (e.g., format of returned campaigns). For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use 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 provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'technique_stix_id' (STIX ID to look up campaigns), 'domain' (domain name with options), and 'include_description' (whether to include description in output). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could detail domain options more explicitly.

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 in which a technique is used by its STIX ID'. This is specific (verb 'Get', resource 'campaigns', condition 'technique is used'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_campaigns' (no filtering) and 'get_campaigns_attributed_to_group' (different filter).

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 you need campaigns related to a specific technique, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'get_techniques_used_by_campaign' (reverse relationship) or 'get_campaigns_using_software' (different filter type). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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