BloodHound MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only) and mentions reconnaissance use, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'other attributes' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences and an Args section, front-loading the core purpose. The reconnaissance sentence adds context but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be tighter by merging the second and third sentences for better flow.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks details on return values (e.g., what attributes are included), error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed about how 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'computer_id' as 'The ID of the computer to query', adding basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain the format of the ID (e.g., GUID, hostname) or provide examples, which limits its utility. With 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the minimal explanation reduces the score.

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 information about a specific computer in a domain, providing a general overview including name, domain, and other attributes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_computers' (plural) by focusing on a single computer, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'other attributes' entails.

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 for reconnaissance and targeting within a domain, suggesting it's for initial information gathering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_computer_info' vs 'get_computer_admin_rights' or other sibling tools. The guidance is contextual but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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