Skip to main content
Glama
imouiche

MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

by imouiche

get_techniques_by_tactic

Get all MITRE ATT&CK techniques for a specified tactic. Supports enterprise, mobile, and ICS domains with optional technique descriptions.

Instructions

Get all techniques associated with a specific ATT&CK tactic.

This uses the MITRE ATT&CK Navigator-style mapping between tactics and
techniques for a given domain (e.g., "enterprise-attack").

Examples:
    - get_techniques_by_tactic("Initial Access", "enterprise")
    - get_techniques_by_tactic("Execution", "enterprise")
    - get_techniques_by_tactic("Persistence", "enterprise")

Args:
    tactic: Tactic name (e.g., "Initial Access", "Persistence").
    domain: ATT&CK domain ("enterprise", "mobile", "ics").
    include_description: Whether to include technique descriptions
                         in the structured and formatted output.

Returns:
    {
      "count": <number of techniques>,
      "techniques": [
        {
          "attack_id": "<TXXXX or TXXXX.YYY>",
          "name": "<technique name>",
          "stix_id": "<attack-pattern--...>",
          "description": "<description or null>",
          "tactic": "<tactic name>",
        },
        ...
      ],
      "formatted": "<human-readable technique list>",
      "message": "<status summary>"
    }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoenterprise
tacticYes
include_descriptionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or safety profile. While the return schema is given, the agent learns nothing about destructive potential or required access levels for this read-like operation.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a contextual line about Navigator mapping, three clear examples, then bulleted Args and Returns. Every line adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 3 parameters and an output schema provided, the description covers the essential information. The examples are helpful. It could be enhanced by noting that it requires an internet connection or that results are based on the latest ATT&CK release, but current completeness is good.

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 docstring fully documents each parameter: tactic (string), domain (with default 'enterprise' and allowed values implied), and include_description (boolean, default true). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare JSON 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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair ('Get all techniques associated with a specific ATT&CK tactic') and explicitly names the resource (tactic). It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_techniques and get_techniques_by_platform by focusing on tactic-based retrieval, and the examples reinforce this specificity.

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 provides usage examples for common tactics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_techniques, get_techniques_by_platform). The mention of 'Navigator-style mapping' hints at a specific underlying data structure but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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