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 the tool 'shows how groups use a technique', which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state it's a query tool. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, pagination, or error handling. 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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section with clear parameter explanations. There's no redundant information, and each sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but it's efficient.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It covers parameter semantics well and states the purpose clearly, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output structure, errors) and usage guidelines. For a query tool with three parameters, this is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 adds meaningful context for all three parameters: 'technique_stix_id' is explained as 'Technique STIX ID to check how they are used and in what procedure', 'domain' is clarified with allowed values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), and 'include_description' specifies its effect ('Whether to include description in the output') and default. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 procedure examples by technique STIX ID (shows how groups use a technique)'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('procedure examples'), and key parameter ('technique STIX ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_procedure_examples_by_tactic' or 'get_techniques_used_by_group', which have related but distinct purposes.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_procedure_examples_by_tactic' (for tactic-based examples) or 'get_techniques_used_by_group' (for group-based techniques), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is when you have a technique STIX ID and want procedure examples.

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