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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get all techniques'), without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations and unknown complexity, this is inadequate transparency.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, and the Args section clarifies each parameter without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for its complexity.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. It's minimally viable for understanding what the tool does, but gaps in transparency and guidelines make it incomplete for confident agent use.

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: 'tactic' (name to lookup), 'domain' (with enum values 'enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), and 'include_description' (boolean flag with default). This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain parameter interactions or constraints.

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 all techniques of the given tactic'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('techniques'), and mentions the key parameter ('tactic'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_techniques' or 'get_techniques_by_platform', which would require a 5.

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 like 'get_all_techniques', 'get_techniques_by_platform', and 'get_tactics_by_technique', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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