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 mentions what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, error conditions, or the format of returned groups. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 Args section is structured but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by clarifying parameters, though it could be more integrated. No wasted text, but minor room for tighter phrasing.

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, no output schema, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks output details, error handling, and behavioral context. For a tool with this complexity and no structured support, it's adequate but has clear gaps in transparency and guidelines.

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 3 parameters: 'software_stix_id' is for checking which groups use given software, 'domain' specifies the domain name with options, and 'include_description' controls output inclusion with default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on 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 ('groups using software'), specifying it's by software name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_groups' (which lists all groups) and 'get_groups_by_alias' (which filters by alias), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_groups_using_technique' (which uses technique instead of software). The purpose is specific but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or compare with similar tools like 'get_groups_using_technique' or 'get_software_used_by_group'. Usage is implied by the parameters 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.