BloodHound MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieves') and provides security context about the data's purpose. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this queries live data versus cached information.

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 a clear purpose statement, explanatory context, and dedicated parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence slightly rephrases the first. The Args section is efficiently formatted with clear explanations for each parameter.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation and clear purpose. However, it lacks information about return format, error handling, authentication requirements, and doesn't fully address when to use this versus similar sibling tools. The security context is helpful but doesn't compensate for all missing behavioral details.

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 explaining all three parameters in the Args section. It clarifies computer_id identifies 'the computer to query', limit controls 'maximum number of administrative users to return', and skip enables 'pagination'. Default values are also provided, adding significant 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'), resource ('administrative users of a specific computer'), and scope ('in the domain'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_computer_info or get_computer_controllers by focusing specifically on admin users, not general computer data or other relationships.

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 implies usage context through the security-focused explanation ('identify potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_computer_admin_rights or get_computer_controllers. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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