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's basic function but lacks behavioral details: no information about error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no match is found. 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 appropriately concise with a clear two-part structure: purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value - the first establishes the core function, the second and third clarify inputs. No wasted words, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner.

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 basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context: no information about return values (what 'object type' means), error conditions, or how this fits within the broader ATT&CK framework alongside sibling tools.

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 successfully does so by explaining both parameters: 'stix_id: ATT&CK ID to find associated object type for' and 'domain: Domain name ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics')'. This adds crucial semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover edge cases or format details.

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 object type by stix ID' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('object type') with the key input ('stix ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_object_by_stix_id' (which retrieves full objects) by focusing only on type identification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 (e.g., 'get_object_by_stix_id', 'get_objects_by_type'), there's no indication of when type-only retrieval is preferred over full object retrieval or other filtering methods. The Args section documents parameters but doesn't address usage context.

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