MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it 'gets' techniques (likely a read operation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the output takes. The ICS domain restriction is useful context, but overall behavioral disclosure is inadequate.

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. The parameter explanations are clear and necessary given the schema coverage gap. No wasted sentences, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers parameter purposes and domain restriction, but lacks output format explanation, error handling, or behavioral context that would be needed for confident use. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: asset_stix_id ('Asset STIX ID to find techniques targeting it'), domain ('Domain name'), and include_description ('Whether to include description in the output'). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain STIX ID format or domain constraints beyond 'ics'.

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 resource 'techniques targeting a specific asset', with explicit domain restriction 'ICS domain only'. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_all_techniques' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_techniques_used_by_group' or similar targeting tools.

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 implies usage context with 'ICS domain only' and the required asset_stix_id parameter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_techniques_used_by_group' or 'get_techniques_by_tactic'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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