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 mentions default values for parameters but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this 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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section listing parameters with brief explanations. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner (e.g., using bullet points). Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters but lacks crucial context: no information on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely queries a database or API, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'campaign_stix_id' as the ID to check, 'domain' with its allowed values ('enterprise', 'mobile', or 'ics'), and 'include_description' with its default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format or examples further.

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 states the tool 'Get techniques used by campaign' which clearly indicates it retrieves techniques associated with a campaign. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_techniques_used_by_group' or 'get_techniques_used_by_group_software', making it somewhat vague about its specific scope within the broader toolset.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_all_techniques' or 'get_techniques_by_tactic', leaving users to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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