Skip to main content
Glama
imouiche

MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

by imouiche

get_objects_by_content

Search MITRE ATT&CK objects by matching text in their descriptions. Find techniques, groups, malware, and mitigations using keywords.

Instructions

Search MITRE ATT&CK objects by matching text inside their description field.

This performs a full-text search over object descriptions. It is useful for:
  • Finding techniques related to specific technologies (e.g., “PowerShell”)
  • Finding groups mentioning a region or country (e.g., “Russia”)
  • Finding mitigations referencing specific defenses (e.g., “multi-factor”)
  • Searching malware or tool descriptions for keywords

Args:
    content: The text to search for (case-insensitive, partial match).
    object_type: STIX object type, such as:
        - "attack-pattern" (techniques)
        - "intrusion-set" (APT groups)
        - "malware"
        - "tool"
        - "course-of-action" (mitigations)
        - "campaign"
        - "x-mitre-data-source"
        - "x-mitre-data-component"
        - etc.
    domain: ATT&CK domain ("enterprise", "mobile", "ics").
    include_description: Whether to return descriptions in the structured output.

Returns:
    {
      "count": <number of matches>,
      "objects": [
         {
            "attack_id": "<ATT&CK ID or null>",
            "name": "<object name>",
            "stix_id": "<STIX ID>",
            "type": "<object_type>",
            "description": "<description or null>"
         },
         ...
      ],
      "formatted": "<human-readable formatted list>",
      "message": "<status message>"
    }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoenterprise
contentYes
object_typeYes
include_descriptionNo

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 for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the search is case-insensitive partial match over descriptions, and details the return format (count, objects, formatted, message). It implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state safety or side-effect absence, which would strengthen transparency.

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 clear purpose statement, bullet points for use cases, and a detailed return format example. It is somewhat lengthy but each section adds value. Front-loading the core action aids quick understanding.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers search behavior, parameter details, use cases, and return format. It does not discuss error handling or performance, but it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so thoroughly: content (case-insensitive partial match), object_type (with example STIX types), domain (with example values), and include_description (boolean). It adds meaning not present in the schema, making parameter usage 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 the tool searches MITRE ATT&CK objects by matching text inside their description field. It provides specific use case examples (finding techniques by technology, groups by region, etc.), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_objects_by_name (name search) or search_techniques (which may search other fields).

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 lists explicit use cases (finding techniques by technology, groups by region, etc.) that clarify when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like search_techniques or get_objects_by_name, so there is minor room for improvement.

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