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 tool retrieves tactics but doesn't describe the output format (e.g., list of tactic objects), pagination, error handling, or any rate limits. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 with the core purpose in the first line. The Args section is structured clearly, with each parameter explained concisely. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating the Args 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 the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool in a security context (ATT&CK), more context on STIX and domains would be helpful.

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: 'matrix_stix_id' specifies it's for finding associated tactics, 'domain' clarifies allowed values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), and 'include_description' explains its effect on output. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail STIX ID format or domain implications.

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 the resource 'tactics by matrix', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_tactics' (which retrieves all tactics without filtering) and 'get_tactics_by_technique' (which filters by technique instead of matrix). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'matrix' refers to (e.g., ATT&CK matrix), leaving some ambiguity.

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 matrix STIX ID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_all_matrices' or 'get_tactics_by_technique'. The lack of context makes it unclear in what scenarios this tool is preferred over others.

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