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 states the tool 'gets' groups, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the 'Args' section could be more integrated into the main text for better flow. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output structure, error cases, or behavioral traits like pagination or data freshness. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to be adequate.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter's purpose, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies 'technique_stix_id' as the ID to check associations, 'domain' with allowed values, and 'include_description' as a boolean flag. However, it doesn't detail parameter interactions or constraints, keeping the score at baseline.

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 groups using a technique by its STIX ID.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('groups'), and key input ('technique STIX ID'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_groups_by_alias' or 'get_groups_attributing_to_campaign,' which would require a 5.

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. While it mentions the 'technique_stix_id' parameter, it doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over other group-related tools (e.g., 'get_all_groups') or technique-related tools (e.g., 'get_techniques_used_by_group'). This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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