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 operation as a retrieval (read-only) and includes a security context about DCOM rights abuse, which adds value. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of user objects).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by explanatory context and a clear parameter section. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains DCOM rights, the third provides security context, and the Args section is essential given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the basics: purpose, parameters, and security relevance. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what fields users have) and any behavioral constraints like authentication needs, leaving some gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explicitly documents all three parameters (computer_id, limit, skip) with clear meanings, default values, and usage context (e.g., 'for pagination'), 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'), target resource ('users that have DCOM rights to a specific computer'), and scope ('in the domain'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_computer_dcom_rights by focusing on users rather than rights, and from other computer-related tools by specifying DCOM rights.

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 warning about DCOM rights being 'abused for privilege escalation and lateral movement,' suggesting this tool is for security assessment. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_computer_dcom_rights or other computer rights tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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