mitre-mcp

Get Software

get_software

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve software entries from the MITRE ATT&CK framework by domain, filter by software types and revoked/deprecated status, and paginate results. Returns token-optimized responses for efficient analysis.

Instructions

Get software from the MITRE ATT&CK framework with token-optimized responses.

Args: ctx: FastMCP request context (injected by the server) domain: Domain to query (enterprise-attack, mobile-attack, or ics-attack) remove_revoked_deprecated: Remove revoked or deprecated objects software_types: Optional list of ATT&CK object types to include (e.g., ["malware"]) limit: Maximum number of software to return (default: 20) offset: Index to start from when returning software (for pagination)

Returns: Dictionary containing a list of software and pagination metadata

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`domain`	No	enterprise-attack
`offset`	No
`software_types`	No
`remove_revoked_deprecated`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`software`	Yes
`pagination`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.4.0Sep 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / domain / enum

Added value: +[
+  "enterprise-attack",
+  "mobile-attack",
+  "ics-attack"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Limit"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "title": "Offset",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedOutput schema / $defs

Added value: +{
+  "Pagination": {
+    "description": "Pagination metadata returned alongside paged list results.",
+    "properties": {
+      "has_more": {
+        "title": "Has More",
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "limit": {
+        "title": "Limit",
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "offset": {
+        "title": "Offset",
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "total": {
+        "title": "Total",
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "total",
+      "offset",
+      "limit",
+      "has_more"
+    ],
+    "title": "Pagination",
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "SoftwareResult": {
+    "description": "Single software entry in get_software results.",
+    "properties": {
+      "description": {
+        "title": "Description",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "id": {
+        "title": "Id",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "title": "Name",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": {
+        "title": "Type",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "id",
+      "name",
+      "type",
+      "description"
+    ],
+    "title": "SoftwareResult",
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
addedOutput schema / description
```
Added value: +"get_software result."
```

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "pagination": {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/Pagination"
+  },
+  "software": {
+    "items": {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/SoftwareResult"
+    },
+    "title": "Software",
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "software",
+  "pagination"
+]

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"get_softwareDictOutput"New value: +"SoftwareListResult"

First observedv0.3.1May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by promising token-optimized responses and clarifying that the result is a dictionary with a software list plus pagination metadata, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 organized with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It is slightly redundant with the schema, particularly for domain enums and parameter names, but every section adds some operational 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 description covers all parameters, the return shape, pagination, and domain options, and an output schema exists, so completeness is strong. The main gaps are the lack of explicit alternative routing and the minor default inconsistency for limit.

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 carries the full burden and does provide a meaningful line for each parameter, including defaults and an example for software_types. It is strong, but the stated limit default of 20 conflicts with the schema's null default, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool retrieves software from the MITRE ATT&CK framework, with additional detail on filtering and pagination. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_techniques and get_tactics because each targets a distinct ATT&CK resource type.

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 its use case by naming the resource type and listing parameters, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention situations where another sibling would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server