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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: what types of objects are returned, whether results are paginated, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. 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 well-structured. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides organized parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose - the first states what the tool does, and the Args section efficiently documents each parameter. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While it documents parameters well, it doesn't address critical contextual information: what 'objects' means in this context (from the sibling tools, these appear to be ATT&CK framework objects), what the output contains, whether there are limitations on time ranges or result sizes, or how this tool relates to the many sibling filtering tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing clear parameter documentation in the Args section. It explains all three parameters: timestamp format (ISO string with example), domain options (three specific values), and include_description behavior (boolean with default). This adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 objects modified after a specific timestamp'. This is a specific verb+resource combination (get + objects) with a clear filtering condition (modified after timestamp). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_objects_created_after' - both filter by time but on different attributes (modified vs created).

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. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_objects_by_type', 'get_objects_by_name', 'get_objects_created_after'), there's no indication of when this time-based filtering approach is appropriate versus other filtering methods. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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