attack_mitigationsRetrieve MITRE ATT&CK technique mitigations and see how each countermeasure applies to the specific technique. Use an ATT&CK technique ID to get actionable mitigation details.
Return mitigations for a technique, including how each one applies to that specific technique.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ATT&CK technique id | |
| includeGeneral | No | Include the generic mitigation text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is read-only in nature ('Return mitigations') and that the output is tailored to the specific technique. It does not elaborate on response structure, potential errors, or any other behavioral constraints, but for a simple query tool this is a modest gap rather than a serious one.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that starts with the core action and resource, then adds one valuable qualifier about the output. There is no filler, redundant explanation, or unnecessary length.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with fully documented schemas, the description is mostly adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description leaves some ambiguity about the exact return shape—for example, whether mitigations come as objects, strings, or keyed by ID—so the qualitative 'including how each one applies' only partially compensates.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented: 'id' is the ATT&CK technique id and 'includeGeneral' controls inclusion of generic mitigation text. The description itself adds no direct parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('mitigations for a technique'), and adds a distinctive clause about showing how each mitigation applies to the given technique. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like attack_related, attack_search, or defend_countermeasures.
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 the tool should be used when a caller needs mitigations for a specific ATT&CK technique, and the 'including how each one applies' clause suggests it provides more targeted context than a generic list. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as defend_countermeasures or attack_related, nor does it name any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.