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 action ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the 'Args' section more seamlessly or adding brief context on why revoked techniques matter.

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 the purpose and parameters but lacks output details, error handling, or contextual examples. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would enhance usability, but it meets basic requirements.

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 both parameters: 'domain' (with allowed values: 'enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics') and 'include_description' (with default behavior). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases for a perfect score.

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 all revoked techniques in the MITRE ATT&CK framework.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('revoked techniques'), and context ('MITRE ATT&CK framework'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_techniques' or 'get_techniques_by_tactic,' which would be needed for a score of 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. With many sibling tools related to techniques (e.g., 'get_all_techniques,' 'get_techniques_by_tactic'), there is no mention of when this specific tool for revoked techniques is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other technique-related queries.

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