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 states the action ('Get') and output control ('include_description'), but lacks behavioral details like error handling (e.g., what happens if alias not found), response format, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter list. However, the structure is slightly awkward ('it's' should be 'its'), and the parameter explanations could be more integrated. It's concise but not optimally structured.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks output details (e.g., what data is returned) and behavioral context. It's minimally adequate for a simple lookup tool but leaves gaps in understanding the full tool behavior.

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: 'alias' clarifies it's a 'Software name alias to find in MITRE ATT&CK', 'domain' specifies valid values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics') with a default, and 'include_description' explains its effect on output. This goes 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 software by it's alias' with the context of 'find in MITRE ATT&CK'. This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('software'), and key constraint ('by alias'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_software' (list all) and 'get_software_used_by_group' (different filter), though not explicitly named.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the domain parameter options but doesn't compare to siblings like 'get_all_software' for broader queries or 'get_software_used_by_group' for relationship-based lookups. Usage is implied by the tool name and parameters alone.

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