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 mentions what the tool does (get techniques by platform) and lists parameters, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether it returns a list or single item, pagination or limits, error handling for invalid platforms, or the output format. For a query tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an 'Args:' section that efficiently documents parameters with brief explanations. There's no redundant information, and each sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints into the initial sentence for faster scanning.

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 (a query tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at what 'techniques' entail (e.g., IDs, names, or full objects). It's adequate for basic use but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent fully.

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 semantics beyond the schema: it explains 'platform' as 'Platform (Windows, Linux etc.) to find associated techniques for', clarifies 'domain' with allowed values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), and specifies 'include_description' as 'Whether to include description in the output (default is False)'. This covers all three parameters effectively, though it could elaborate on platform examples 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 tool's purpose: 'Get techniques by the platform provided (Windows, Linux etc.)'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('techniques'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_all_techniques' by focusing on platform filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other platform-related tools like 'get_techniques_targeting_asset', which might also involve platforms.

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_techniques' (for unfiltered lists) or 'get_techniques_by_tactic' (for tactic-based filtering), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is needing techniques for a specific platform, but this is basic and lacks comparative advice.

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