Skip to main content
Glama
imouiche

MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

by imouiche

get_software

Retrieve all non-revoked malware and tools from an ATT&CK domain (enterprise, mobile, or ICS). Optionally include descriptions.

Instructions

Get all software (malware and tools) in a given ATT&CK domain.

This returns non-revoked, non-deprecated software objects, including
both malware and tools, as defined by the MITRE ATT&CK dataset.

Args:
    domain: ATT&CK domain to search ("enterprise", "mobile", or "ics").
    include_description: Whether to include descriptions in the output and
                         formatted text.

Returns:
    {
      "count": <number of software objects>,
      "software": [
        {
          "attack_id": "<SXXXX or similar, if present>",
          "name": "<software name>",
          "stix_id": "<STIX ID>",
          "type": "<malware|tool|...>",
          "description": "<text or null>"
        },
        ...
      ],
      "formatted": "<human-readable list>",
      "message": "<status summary>"
    }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoenterprise
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, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only non-revoked, non-deprecated software objects are returned and includes both malware and tools. It also describes the output structure in detail. While it does not explicitly declare the tool as read-only, the behavior is clearly for retrieval, and no side effects are implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with Docstring sections (Args, Returns) but is relatively lengthy. It includes the full return schema, which is redundant since an output schema exists. While clear, it could be more concise by relying on the structured output schema rather than repeating it in text.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the filtering logic (domain, revoked/deprecated exclusion), parameter effects, and the return format. No critical gaps remain for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining the 'domain' parameter with example values ('enterprise', 'mobile', 'ics') and the 'include_description' boolean effect. This adds essential meaning beyond what the raw schema provides.

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 retrieves all software (malware and tools) for a given ATT&CK domain, specifying it returns non-revoked, non-deprecated objects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_all_software' (which likely lacks domain filtering) and 'search_software' (which enables flexible search by name/alias).

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 explicitly conditions usage on the 'domain' parameter, indicating the tool is appropriate when software from a specific ATT&CK domain is needed. However, it does not directly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for cross-domain queries) or explicitly name alternative tools like 'get_all_software'.

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