Skip to main content
Glama
imouiche

MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

by imouiche

generate_layer

Generate an ATT&CK Navigator layer to visualize techniques linked to a threat group, mitigation, or software ID, enabling threat intelligence analysis.

Instructions

Generate an ATT&CK Navigator layer for visualization.

This wraps mitreattack.navlayers.UsageLayerGenerator and produces a
JSON layer highlighting techniques associated with a given ATT&CK ID.

Only the following ATT&CK ID prefixes are supported:
  - Gxxxx : groups (intrusion sets)
  - Mxxxx : mitigations (course-of-action)
  - Sxxxx : software (tool/malware)
  - Dxxxx : data components

Technique IDs (Txxxx / Txxxx.xxx) are NOT supported here.

Args:
    attack_id: ATT&CK ID (Gxxxx, Mxxxx, Sxxxx, or Dxxxx)
    score: Score to assign to all matched techniques in the layer
    domain: ATT&CK domain (e.g., "enterprise", "mobile", "ics")

Returns:
    {
      "success": bool,
      "attack_id": "<G/M/S/D ID>",
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "count": int,              # number of techniques in layer
      "layer": { ... } | null,   # ATT&CK Navigator layer JSON
      "message": "<summary or error>"
    }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreNo
domainNoenterprise
attack_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior: it wraps a library, generates a layer, highlights techniques, and returns a structured JSON with specific fields. It does not mention potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but it covers the core behavioral traits adequately.

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 a header, supported prefixes section, args list, and return format. It is front-loaded with purpose. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability.

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 output schema is provided in the description, the return values are fully documented. The tool is moderately complex with 3 parameters and specific constraints, and the description covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use it correctly, especially compared to sibling query tools.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description text documents all three parameters (attack_id, score, domain) with types, defaults, and usage details (e.g., score assigned to all matched techniques). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 explicitly states 'Generate an ATT&CK Navigator layer for visualization' and explains it produces a JSON layer highlighting techniques for a given ATT&CK ID. It clearly distinguishes from sibling query tools by specifying supported ID prefixes (G, M, S, D) and explicitly excluding technique IDs (Txxxx).

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 states when to use the tool (for supported ATT&CK IDs G, M, S, D) and when not to use it (technique IDs are NOT supported). It provides clear context but does not name specific alternative tools for unsupported IDs, which would further aid decision-making.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/imouiche/complete-mitre-attack-mcp-server'

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