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 tool 'gets' software (implies read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a search/filter operation, what the output format is (list of software objects?), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.

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 purpose is stated first in a clear heading, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters. However, the formatting with 'Args:' as a separate line is slightly verbose compared to integrating it into a single paragraph.

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, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks crucial context: what the tool returns (list of software objects? STIX IDs?), how results are structured, pagination, error handling, or examples. For a search/filter tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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. The Args section adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: explains what 'technique_stix_id' is for (search software that uses it), clarifies 'domain' options ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), and specifies 'include_description' purpose (whether to include description in output) with default. This adequately documents parameters 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 using technique' specifies the action (get) and resource (software) with the constraint (using technique). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_software' (unfiltered list) and 'get_software_by_alias' (different filter). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_software_used_by_group' or 'get_software_used_by_campaign' which filter by different criteria.

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_all_software' (for unfiltered lists) or 'get_software_by_alias' (for alias-based searches). The Args section documents parameters but offers no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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