mitre-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct ATT&CK entity or relationship (groups, mitigations, software, tactics, techniques) with no overlap. Even the technique tools are differentiated by access pattern (by ID, by tactic, all with pagination, etc.).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'get_<entity>' pattern, with variations like 'get_technique_by_id' and 'get_techniques_by_tactic' using clear postfix modifiers. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools cover the core ATT&CK entities and their key relationships. The scope is well-defined without being bloated or sparse.
Completeness4/5
Covers all major ATT&CK entities and important relationships (techniques by tactic, by mitigation, by group). Minor gaps like missing direct lookups for mitigations or software by ID, but these can be worked around via filtering.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on November 17, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not state read-only nature, error conditions, or performance implications. The basic operation is described, but behavioral traits beyond the obvious are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise with clear header, args, and returns. No redundant or irrelevant information. Well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains group_name and domain with enumerated values, which adds value. However, it does not provide additional context like input format or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets techniques used by a group. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_techniques and get_techniques_by_tactic by specifying 'by group', but does not explicitly differentiate from get_software or get_groups. Overall clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_techniques_by_tactic or get_techniques. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., group must already exist). The description only explains parameters, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond basic operation (e.g., read-only nature, pagination, or performance).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with clear Args and Returns sections, and no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description adequately covers the return format. However, it could explain more about the filtering behavior of remove_revoked_deprecated and potential constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides an example for tactic_shortname and lists the domain options, adding some value. However, it does not explain the effect of remove_revoked_deprecated beyond the name, and defaults are not mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'techniques by tactic', distinguishing it from siblings like get_techniques (no tactic filter) and get_technique_by_id (single technique).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_techniques or get_techniques_used_by_group. The description lacks context on use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. It only states the basic functionality and return type.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a single sentence plus a structured args section. No redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, its parameters, and return type. However, given the absence of annotations, more context (e.g., read-only nature, typical use cases) could be beneficial for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing the two parameters (domain with possible values, remove_revoked_deprecated as boolean) and describing the return value. This compensates for the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all mitigations from the MITRE ATT&CK framework', specifying the verb (get), resource (mitigations), and source. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other ATT&CK objects like groups, software, and techniques.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., get_techniques_mitigated_by_mitigation). No context on prerequisites or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Implies read-only retrieval, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, network calls, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise docstring format with one-line purpose, followed by Args and Returns. Every sentence is necessary and no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameters, and return value. With an output schema (implied), the description does not need to detail return structure. Lacks error handling or limitations, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters (domain, remove_revoked_deprecated, software_types), adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get all software from the MITRE ATT&CK framework' with specific verb and resource. Distinct from sibling tools like get_groups or get_techniques.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes parameters for filtering but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but no comparison provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes parameters and return type, but lacks details on error handling, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured docstring with purpose, args, returns. Front-loaded, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main aspects with output schema present. Missing info on error behavior, but adequate for a lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining technique_id with example and listing domain values. Default value for domain is only in schema; could be more explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get a technique by its MITRE ATT&CK ID' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools that list or filter techniques.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for single technique lookup, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns a dictionary with mitigation and technique list, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond basic function. For a read-only query, this is adequate but not exceptional; no side effects or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus an argument list. It immediately states the purpose and then lists parameters with clear explanations. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple query with 2 parameters and a likely straightforward output (dictionary with mitigation and techniques), the description covers the essential information. It mentions the return structure and domain options. An example would improve completeness, but it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains mitigation_name as 'the name of the mitigation' and domain with allowed values. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only provides names and types. The description 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get techniques mitigated by a mitigation', which specifies the verb (get), resource (techniques), and filter (mitigated by a mitigation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_techniques (returns all techniques) and get_techniques_by_tactic (by tactic).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists domain options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool should be used to retrieve techniques associated with a specific mitigation, while get_mitigations would return mitigation details. The context from sibling names implies usage, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination via limit/offset, token optimization via include_descriptions, and data filtering via remove_revoked_deprecated. However, it does not mention rate limits, caching, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. It is moderately concise but could be slightly shorter by omitting redundant defaults. Front-loading is good with the main purpose stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though description briefly mentions return type), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all inputs and explains the return value. Missing explicit details about output format beyond 'dictionary containing list and pagination metadata'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully. It explains all 6 parameters: domain with examples, include_subtechniques, remove_revoked_deprecated, include_descriptions (token usage), limit (default 20), and offset (pagination). Each parameter's purpose and effect are clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'gets techniques from the MITRE ATT&CK framework' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_groups and get_mitigations by focusing solely on techniques and mentioning token-optimized responses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing techniques but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_technique_by_id or get_techniques_by_tactic. No guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get all groups') and specifies the return format. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would be expected for a complete behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a structured Args/Returns block. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the key action. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return type ('Dictionary containing a list of groups') and covers the parameters with their defaults and allowed values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 0% of parameter descriptions, but the description adds meaning by listing the valid domain values (enterprise-attack, mobile-attack, ics-attack) in parentheses, which is not present in the schema (which only specifies type string without enums). This adds significant value for parameter selection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets all groups from the MITRE ATT&CK framework. The verb 'get' and resource 'groups' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which target different entities (mitigations, software, tactics, techniques).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage, including optional parameters and return type. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but siblings are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides clear behavioral context: it is a read operation returning a dictionary of tactics, with filtering options. No side effects or destructive actions are implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with separate Args and Returns sections, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema; the description covers parameters and return type. It lacks information about error handling or valid domain values beyond the list, but overall is complete for a straightforward retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains both parameters: 'domain' with three valid values and 'remove_revoked_deprecated' as a boolean to clean up objects. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema's bare type/default definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all tactics from the MITRE ATT&CK framework', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve other entities (groups, mitigations, software, techniques).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates usage for retrieving tactics, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives, nor exclusions. However, the sibling tools are for other entity types, making it clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mitre-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Montimage/mitre-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Montimage/mitre-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mitre-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Montimage/mitre-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Montimage/mitre-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Montimage/mitre-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server