Skip to main content
Glama

test_bloodhound_connection

Test connectivity to BloodHound API and retrieve version information for Active Directory penetration testing assessments.

Instructions

connect to bloodhoundapi and get version

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The tool handler decorated with @mcp.tool, implementing the core logic by calling bloodhound.connectToApi() to test the BloodHound connection and retrieve version.
    @mcp.tool(name="test_bloodhound_connection",description="connect to bloodhoundapi and get version")
    def test_bloodhound_connection():
        return bloodhound.connectToApi()
  • Supporting helper function connectToApi() that creates BloodHound client credentials from config and fetches the API version via the Client class.
    def connectToApi():
        # This might be best loaded from a file
        credentials = Credentials(
            token_id=config.BHE_TOKEN_ID,
            token_key=config.BHE_TOKEN_KEY,
        )
    
        client = Client(scheme=BHE_SCHEME, host=config.BHE_DOMAIN, port=config.BHE_PORT, credentials=credentials)
        
        return client.get_version().api_version
  • The Client.get_version() method called by connectToApi() to perform the actual API request for version information.
    def get_version(self) -> APIVersion:
        response = self._request("GET", "/api/version")
        payload = response.json()
    
        return APIVersion(api_version=payload["data"]["API"]["current_version"], server_version=payload["data"]["server_version"])
  • The @mcp.tool decorator registering the 'test_bloodhound_connection' tool.
    @mcp.tool(name="test_bloodhound_connection",description="connect to bloodhoundapi and get version")
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions connecting and getting version, but lacks details on authentication requirements, error handling, network behavior (e.g., timeouts), or output format. For a connection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a connection tool (which may involve network operations and authentication), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description only states what it does, not how it behaves or what it returns, leaving critical gaps for agent invocation.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the zero-parameter case correctly without unnecessary details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'connect to' and resource 'bloodhoundapi', with the additional action 'get version'. It specifies what the tool does (establish connection and retrieve version information), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_zip_to_bloodhound' or 'run_blooodhound_query' which involve different operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., network access, credentials), timing (e.g., initial setup verification), or exclusions (e.g., not for data ingestion). Without such context, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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/YoussefSahnoun/PentestMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server