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 data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid STIX IDs), rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining parameter defaults and options, without unnecessary fluff. A slight improvement in brevity could push it to a 5.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral details like error handling or output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what the tool returns would enhance completeness.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for all three parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'datacomponent_stix_id' is used to check what techniques it detects, clarifies the 'domain' options ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), and specifies that 'include_description' controls output inclusion with a default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 detected by a datacomponent.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('techniques detected by a datacomponent'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_datacomponents_detecting_technique' or 'get_all_techniques,' which would require more specificity to earn 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. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid STIX ID, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_datacomponents_detecting_technique' for reverse lookups. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction.

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