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 explains the security implications ('abused for privilege escalation and lateral movement'), which adds valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with security relevance.

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 and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the security context sentence could be more integrated. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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's complexity (security-focused query with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and adds security context, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or authentication requirements, which are important for a tool in this domain.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly defines all three parameters ('computer_id', 'limit', 'skip') with clear explanations of their purposes, including defaults and pagination context for 'skip'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('constrained delegation rights of a specific computer'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_constrained_delegation_rights' beyond the computer vs. user focus, which is implied but not stated.

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. While it explains what constrained delegation rights are, it doesn't mention when to choose this over other computer-related tools (e.g., 'get_computer_admin_rights') or the user-focused sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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