search_mitreFind MITRE ATT&CK techniques by keyword, name, or ID fragment and get ranked matches with tactics; use explain for full details.
Keyword search over the bundled MITRE ATT&CK enterprise snapshot. Returns ranked matches (id, name, tactics). Use explain_mitre_technique for details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-25) | |
| query | Yes | Keywords, technique name, or id fragment, e.g. "scheduled task" or "lsass" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world (openWorldHint=false); the description adds that results come from a bundled static snapshot and specifies the return shape (id, name, tactics). It stops short of describing ranking or pagination behavior, so it adds context rather than full behavioral depth.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the return shape, then the sibling routing. No filler and every sentence carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around ranking determinism and how many fields a match contains, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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% and both parameters are documented inline (query examples, limit range 1-25), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only that matches are ranked, with no additional semantics for query syntax or limit effects – baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Keyword search over the bundled MITRE ATT&CK enterprise snapshot') and distinguishes itself from the sibling explain_mitre_technique, which is named explicitly. An agent can tell it apart from the other mitre tool without opening either schema.
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?
Explicitly routes detail-seeking callers to explain_mitre_technique, giving clear context for when this tool is the wrong choice. It does not spell out exclusions or when-not-to-search, but the alternative is named directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.