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 software used by...') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 structured 'Args' section. Each sentence serves a clear purpose: the first defines the tool, and the subsequent lines explain parameters. There's no redundant information, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more polished in flow.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains parameters but fails to cover behavioral aspects like authentication, response format, or error cases. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical information for reliable tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'group_stix_id' (STIX ID for the group), 'domain' (domain options with examples), and 'include_description' (boolean flag with default). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., STIX ID structure).

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 ('software used by MITRE ATT&CK group'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_software' or 'get_software_used_by_campaign' by focusing on group-specific software usage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_techniques_used_by_group_software', which might be a related but distinct operation.

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 prerequisites, such as needing a valid STIX ID, or compare it to siblings like 'get_groups_using_software' or 'get_software_by_alias'. The absence of usage context leaves the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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