BloodHound MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read operation ('Retrieves'), provides security context about controllers, and mentions the vulnerability identification purpose. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the returned controllers will be in (though no output schema exists).

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, domain explanation, security context, and well-organized parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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?

For a read operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides strong coverage of purpose, parameters, and security context. The main gap is the lack of information about return format or structure, which would be helpful given no output schema exists. However, the description is otherwise quite complete for its complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear documentation for all three parameters: explains what 'template_id' represents, clarifies that 'limit' controls maximum return count with default, and describes 'skip' as pagination mechanism with default. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Retrieves'), the resource ('controllers of a specific Certificate Template'), and provides domain-specific context about what controllers are ('security principals that can modify the Certificate Template or its properties'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_cert_template_info' by focusing on controllers rather than general template information.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('critical for identifying ESC2 vulnerabilities') and implicitly distinguishes it from other tools by its specific focus on controllers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for related queries, which prevents a perfect score.

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