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 'gets' information (implying read-only), but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic read operation implied by 'get'.

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's function, and the parameter descriptions clarify each input's role. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be more integrated.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it lacks crucial context about output format, error conditions, authentication requirements, and how results relate to ATT&CK framework concepts. For a tool querying security techniques, more domain context would be helpful.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'group_stix_id' identifies the group, 'domain' specifies the domain with allowed values, and 'include_description' controls output detail. This fully explains parameter purposes beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't specify format details for STIX IDs.

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 used by group's software' which specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('techniques'), and scope ('used by group's software'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_techniques_used_by_group' (which gets techniques directly used by groups) and 'get_software_used_by_group' (which gets software used by groups). However, it could be more specific about what 'techniques' refers to (e.g., ATT&CK techniques).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose distinguishes it from some siblings, there's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_techniques_used_by_group' or 'get_software_used_by_group'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter names alone.

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