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 describes what the tool does (retrieves controllers) and the purpose (identify access paths), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the results come in. The description provides basic operational context but lacks important behavioral details.

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, explanation of controllers, usage context, and parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation and purpose clarity. However, it lacks information about return format, error handling, and authentication requirements. Given the complexity of domain/security tools, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 3 parameters: computer_id (what it represents), limit (maximum number to return with default), and skip (pagination with default). The description adds 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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('controllers of a specific computer'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_computer_info or get_computer_admin_rights by focusing specifically on controllers. It also provides context about what controllers are and their purpose.

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 needing to identify access paths to a computer, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_computer_controllables or get_computer_admin_users. It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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