Save custom Cypher queries for analyzing Active Directory attack paths in BloodHound Community Edition to reuse security analysis patterns.
Create a new saved Cypher query.
Args:
name: Name for the saved query
query: The Cypher query to save
Returns:
JSON response with the created saved query data| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether duplicates are allowed, error handling for invalid queries, or if the query is validated before saving. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Every part adds value: the first sentence states the purpose, and the subsequent lines document parameters and returns efficiently. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints into the main sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, validation) and output specifics beyond 'JSON response', which is insufficient for a creation tool without structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'name' is for the saved query and 'query' is the Cypher query to save, clarifying their purposes. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., query syntax, name constraints), keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new saved Cypher query') and specifies the resource ('saved Cypher query'), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_saved_queries' or 'run_cypher_query'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives like modifying existing queries, though no such sibling exists in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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., needing existing queries to save), compare to 'list_saved_queries' for viewing saved queries, or specify use cases like storing frequently used queries for reuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mwnickerson/bloodhound_mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server