MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about response format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a query tool with no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a well-organized Args section with bullet-point explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains parameters well but lacks information about return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a query tool with no output schema, the description should ideally provide some indication of what to expect in response.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It explains what each parameter means: 'tactic' is 'Tactic name to check procedure examples for', 'domain' specifies the valid values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics') with a default, and 'include_description' clarifies what it controls. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('procedure examples by tactic'), and provides a helpful parenthetical explanation of what procedure examples represent ('shows how groups use techniques in this tactic'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'get_procedure_examples_by_technique' beyond the obvious parameter difference.

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 the sibling list includes 'get_procedure_examples_by_technique' which is clearly related, there's no indication of when to choose one over the other, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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