Skip to main content
Glama
jeneric
by jeneric

techniques_for_actor

List a MITRE ATT&CK actor's techniques and optionally map them to NIST 800-53 controls and DISA STIG mitigations for specified systems.

Instructions

List an ATT&CK actor's techniques, optionally expanded with mitigations for given systems. actor is an ATT&CK group id, name or alias; case, spacing, punctuation and a trailing "Group" or "Team" are ignored, and actor.matched_as then names what matched. actor.also_matches, when present, lists other groups the same label loosely names. A misspelling is not corrected: the error names the closest groups, so call again with the group id of the one meant. The answer opens with summary, which counts the techniques; with include_mitigations it adds the same counts mitigations_for_technique gives, across every technique. Use those counts rather than counting lists yourself. controls lists each control once with its rule ids, and findings lists each finding once, without check or fix text (call finding_details for those). Each technique lists its control ids grouped by where the mapping came from ("ctid" or "override"). stig_ids accepts at most 200; it and severity (CAT levels, e.g. ["I"]) are validated always but only take effect with include_mitigations. To scope a system you cannot name, pass system_description instead. If the knowledge base is not built yet this returns {"status": "not_ready"} with the commands to run, rather than an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actorYes
severityNo
stig_idsNo
system_descriptionNo
include_mitigationsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses actor-matching normalization (case, spacing, punctuation, trailing Group/Team), matched_as/also_matches behavior, that misspellings are not auto-corrected, and the exact not_ready return shape instead of an error. It also explains the response structure and control-id provenance grouping.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with purpose and expansion option before edge cases. Every sentence carries information, though the middle section is packed and could be broken into clearer chunks.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must explain both behavior and return shape, which it does (summary counts, controls, findings, per-technique control ids by source). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 gives meaning to all five parameters: actor accepts id/name/alias with fuzzy matching rules, severity takes CAT levels like ["I"], stig_ids is capped at 200, system_description scopes an unnameable system, and include_mitigations gates the other two. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List an ATT&CK actor's techniques') and immediately states the expansion option. It distinguishes itself from siblings by name, noting that mitigations_for_technique gives the same counts and that finding_details should be called for check/fix text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use guidance for nearly every branch: include_mitigations activates severity/stig_ids, system_description is the fallback for unnameable systems, and a misspelled actor should be retried with the closest group id. It even states the not_ready path and its remedy.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.