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 retrieves a name but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what happens if the ID is invalid, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 adds value, with no wasted words, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, error cases, and differentiation from siblings, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it explains that 'stix_id' is used to 'find associated name' and lists valid values for 'domain' ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), which the schema only titles generically. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't cover all parameter nuances.

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 name for given stix ID' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('name'), and the domain parameter clarifies scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_object_by_stix_id' or 'get_objects_by_name', which might retrieve similar information.

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 that retrieve STIX-related data (e.g., 'get_object_by_stix_id', 'get_objects_by_name'), the description lacks context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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