Skip to main content
Glama
imouiche

MITRE ATT&CK MCP Server

by imouiche

get_techniques_used_by_software

Retrieve all MITRE ATT&CK techniques used by a specific software or malware, including technique descriptions and relationships, for a given domain.

Instructions

Get all techniques used by specific software/malware.

This shows what ATT&CK techniques a given software (tool/malware) is
capable of performing.

Args:
    software_stix_id: STIX ID of the software object
                      (e.g., "malware--UUID", "tool--UUID").
    domain: ATT&CK domain ("enterprise", "mobile", "ics").
    include_description: Whether to include technique descriptions.

Returns:
    {
      "software": {
          "attack_id": "SXXXX or similar" | null,
          "name": "<software name or null>",
          "stix_id": "<software STIX ID>",
          "type": "<malware|tool|...> or null",
          "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
software_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?

Without annotations, the description fully reveals the tool's behavior by detailing the output structure, including relationships and formatted responses. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, which could be inferred but is not guaranteed.

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 clear first sentence, followed by detailed parameter and return documentation. It is somewhat lengthy due to the complete output schema, but every section serves a purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the input parameters and output schema, making it easy for an agent to understand the return value. It lacks information on error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid STIX ID), but given the presence of an output schema and detailed docstring, it is largely complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the 'Args' section: software_stix_id with examples, domain with allowed values, and include_description with a clear boolean intent. 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 retrieves all techniques used by a specific software/malware. The verb 'Get' and resource 'techniques' with qualifier 'used by software' precisely defines its purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve techniques for groups or campaigns.

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 what the tool does but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives like get_techniques_used_by_group or get_groups_using_technique. While the purpose is clear, the absence of usage context or exclusions leaves room for ambiguity.

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