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 adequately describes the core operation (retrieving memberships) and mentions security implications, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Retrieves'). The pagination behavior is documented in the parameter section but not in the main description.

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. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the operation, the second clarifies 'group memberships,' the third provides security context, and the parameter section is essential given the schema's lack of descriptions. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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 reasonable job. It covers the purpose, parameters, and some security context. However, it lacks details about return format, error handling, authentication needs, and doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema that would describe the membership data structure.

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 description provides a dedicated 'Args' section that explains all three parameters beyond what the schema offers (0% coverage). It clarifies that 'computer_id' identifies the computer to query, 'limit' controls maximum returns with a default, and 'skip' enables pagination with a default. This adds meaningful semantic context that the bare schema lacks.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('group memberships of a specific computer within the domain'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_computer_info' or 'get_group_memberships' by focusing specifically on computer-to-group relationships rather than general computer info or group-to-member relationships.

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 by mentioning 'potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation,' which suggests security/penetration testing scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_computer_controllers' or 'get_computer_admin_rights,' nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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