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 explains what DCOM rights are and their security implications (abuse for privilege escalation), which adds valuable behavioral context beyond just the operation. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by limit/skip parameters), error conditions, or response format 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?

Three sentences with zero waste - first states the operation, second explains DCOM rights, third provides security context. Well-structured and appropriately sized for the complexity, though the first sentence has a minor grammatical error ('the a list').

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good conceptual context about DCOM rights and security implications. However, it lacks details about the return format, pagination behavior, and doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented parameters, making it incomplete for optimal agent usage.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention any parameters explicitly, but implies a computer identifier is needed ('specific computer'). It doesn't explain the purpose of limit/skip parameters for pagination, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 retrieves a list of security principals for a specific computer's DCOM rights, with a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('security principals'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_computer_dcom_users by focusing on rights rather than users, but could be more explicit about the distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_computer_dcom_users or other rights-related tools. The description mentions DCOM rights can be abused for privilege escalation, which provides some context but doesn't specify when this tool is the appropriate choice among similar siblings.

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