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 describes the tool as a retrieval operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination details beyond the skip parameter. The cybersecurity context hints at sensitive data, but permissions or access constraints aren't addressed, leaving significant gaps for a tool with security implications.

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 followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second elaborates on controllables, the third provides security context, and the Args section documents parameters efficiently. Minor verbosity in the second sentence could be trimmed, but overall it's front-loaded and purposeful.

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 complexity (security-focused domain tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and high-level context, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, return format, or performance characteristics. For a tool with cybersecurity implications, more behavioral transparency would be needed for full completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains computer_id as 'The ID of the computer to query', limit as 'Maximum number of controllables to return (default: 100)', and skip as 'Number of controllables to skip for pagination (default: 0)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail ID format or pagination mechanics. With 3 parameters fully documented in the description, it effectively bridges the schema gap.

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') and resource ('Security Principals within the domain that a specific computer has administrative control over'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_computer_controllers (which likely shows who controls the computer) or get_computer_admin_rights (which likely shows the computer's administrative rights). The cybersecurity context ('potential targets for lateral movement, privilege escalation, and persistence') further clarifies the purpose beyond basic retrieval.

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 when investigating a computer's attack surface for security purposes, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_computer_controllers or get_user_controllables. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the cybersecurity framing and parameter requirements.

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