Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

by imouiche
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_layer_metadata

Get a pre-built ATT&CK Navigator layer metadata template for enterprise, mobile, or ICS domains. Use it to quickly create custom layers for threat intelligence workflows.

Instructions

Return a standard ATT&CK Navigator layer metadata template.

This provides default layer properties (version info, gradient settings,
layout, filters, etc.) adapted to a specific ATT&CK domain.

Useful for clients that want to build custom layers programmatically
without starting from scratch.

Args:
    domain: One of "enterprise", "mobile", "ics". Defaults to "enterprise".

Returns:
    {
      "success": bool,
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "metadata": { ... },  # Navigator layer metadata
      "message": "<summary>"
    }

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_layer_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoenterprise

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval by describing it as returning a template, but does not explicitly state side effects (none) or permissions required. The transparency is adequate but could be more explicit about non-destructive behavior.

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 and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema in the description, the description covers the parameter, return format, and use case. It is complete enough for a metadata retrieval tool, though it omits error conditions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains the domain parameter with valid values ('enterprise', 'mobile', 'ics') and default. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema, though it lacks formal enum constraints.

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 returns a standard ATT&CK Navigator layer metadata template and explains its contents (version info, gradient settings, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like generate_layer by implying this is a base template for building custom layers, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 indicates when to use (building custom layers programmatically) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like generate_layer. It provides usage context but lacks exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools