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

MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

by imouiche
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_revoked_techniques

Retrieve revoked techniques for a domain. These techniques have been merged or replaced and are no longer valid in the ATT&CK framework.

Instructions

Get all revoked techniques for a domain.

Revoked techniques are no longer valid in the framework, often because
they were merged or replaced.

Returns:
    {
        "found": bool,
        "count": int,
        "techniques": [...],
        "formatted": "<pretty output>",
        "message": "..."
    }

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_revoked_techniques"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoenterprise
include_descriptionNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 describes the output structure and explains the nature of revoked techniques (read-only). However, it lacks details on authorization requirements, side effects, or performance considerations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The code block for return format is useful and well-structured. No extraneous sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given two undocumented parameters and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter documentation and fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without prior knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to parameters. It mentions 'domain' in the first sentence but does not explain that it defaults to 'enterprise' or what values are accepted. The include_description parameter is entirely undocumented.

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 that the tool retrieves revoked techniques for a domain, and explains what revoked techniques are. It distinguishes itself from other tools by specifying a subset (revoked) but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings that may also return lists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_all_techniques or get_technique_by_id. It does not provide context for appropriate usage or 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