Skip to main content
Glama
imouiche

MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

by imouiche

get_software_used_by_group

Retrieve all malware and tools used by a specific APT group by providing its STIX ID, domain, and optional descriptions.

Instructions

Get all software (malware and tools) used by a specific APT group,
identified by its STIX ID.

This uses MITRE's `get_software_used_by_group` to follow 'uses'
relationships from an intrusion set (group) to software objects.

Args:
    group_stix_id: STIX ID of the group (e.g., "intrusion-set--UUID").
    domain: ATT&CK domain ("enterprise", "mobile", "ics").
    include_description: Whether to include software descriptions.

Returns:
    {
      "group": {
          "attack_id": "GXXXX" | null,
          "name": "<group name or null>",
          "stix_id": "<intrusion-set--UUID>",
          "description": "<text or null>"
      } | null,
      "count": <number of software objects>,
      "software": [
        {
          "attack_id": "SXXXX or similar" | null,
          "name": "<software name>",
          "stix_id": "<STIX ID>",
          "type": "<malware|tool|...>",
          "description": "<text or null>",
          "relationships": [
            {
              "stix_id": "<relationship--UUID>",
              "relationship_type": "uses",
              "description": "<relationship description or null>",
              "source_ref": "<source STIX ID>",
              "target_ref": "<target STIX ID>",
            },
            ...
          ]
        },
        ...
      ],
      "formatted": "<human-readable list of software>",
      "message": "<status summary>"
    }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoenterprise
group_stix_idYes
include_descriptionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details the underlying mechanism (following 'uses' relationships) and provides a complete return format including group, count, software with nested relationships. Missing potential constraints like pagination or performance, but still excellent 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?

Well-structured: purpose first, then method, parameters, and full return spec. The output schema is thorough but a bit verbose. However, the detail is appropriate for a complex data retrieval tool.

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 complex return format and 0% parameter descriptions, the tool definition provides everything an agent needs: purpose, usage context, all parameter details, and a complete output schema. No gaps.

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 description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: group_stix_id with example UUID, domain with allowed values, include_description with boolean purpose. 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 clearly states 'Get all software (malware and tools) used by a specific APT group, identified by its STIX ID.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_all_software, get_groups_using_software, and get_software_used_by_campaign.

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 explains it follows 'uses' relationships from intrusion set to software and lists parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_groups_using_software or get_software_used_by_campaign. Given many sibling tools, some guidance on selection would be beneficial.

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