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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or output format. The description lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be more integrated. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and no complex behavioral requirements.

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 complexity (querying relationships between campaigns and software), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'software' means in this context, how results are structured, or what happens when no software is found. For a query tool with no structured output documentation, more completeness is needed.

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 each parameter's purpose, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'campaign_stix_id' is for lookup, 'domain' has specific allowed values, and 'include_description' controls output detail. However, it doesn't explain format requirements for STIX IDs or the implications of domain selection.

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 used by campaign' specifies both the action (get) and the resource (software used by campaign). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_software' (which lists all software) and 'get_software_used_by_group' (which focuses on groups rather than campaigns), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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 related tools like 'get_campaigns_using_software' or 'get_techniques_used_by_campaign', nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for usage. The only implied usage is from the parameter descriptions, which isn't sufficient for agent decision-making.

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