Skip to main content
Glama
imouiche

MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

by imouiche

get_techniques_used_by_group_software

Retrieve techniques used by software of a threat group via the Group → Software → Techniques relationship.

Instructions

Get techniques used by the software that a group uses (Group → Software → Techniques).

This provides an indirect view of a group's capabilities by following:
    Group (intrusion set) → Software (malware/tools) → Techniques

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 technique 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 techniques>,

      "techniques": [
        {
          "attack_id": "TXXXX or TXXXX.YYY" | null,
          "name": "<technique name>",
          "stix_id": "<attack-pattern--UUID>",
          "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 techniques>",
      "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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the return structure, the chain of relationships, and parameter behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only, but the content implies query behavior. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 summary, chain explanation, Args section, and Returns section. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor redundancy (chain explained twice) but overall clear and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (indirect query with nested relationships), the description provides a complete picture. It covers all return fields (group, techniques, relationships, count, formatted, message) and each parameter. Output schema exists, but the description adds value by explaining the context.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: group_stix_id (with STIX ID example), domain (listing valid values: enterprise, mobile, ics), and include_description (boolean). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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's purpose: 'Get techniques used by the software that a group uses' and explains the indirect chain Group→Software→Techniques. It distinguishes from siblings like get_techniques_used_by_group (direct view) and get_software_used_by_group, as implied by the 'indirect view' wording.

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 provides context on when to use this tool (for an indirect view via software) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies a distinction from direct views but lacks explicit guidance.

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