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. It discloses that the tool retrieves a list (implying read-only behavior) and mentions security risks (abuse for lateral movement), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with security implications.

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, context explanation, and parameter details in a bullet-like format. It is appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the security context sentence, while valuable, slightly extends beyond minimal necessity. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics and purpose clarity but lacks details on return values (e.g., format of the list), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a security-focused tool with potential operational impact, this leaves gaps in completeness, though it covers basics adequately.

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 description must compensate. It explicitly lists and explains all three parameters (computer_id, limit, skip), providing clear semantics beyond the schema's basic types. The explanations include defaults and purposes (e.g., pagination for skip), effectively documenting the parameters, though it could note that computer_id is required.

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 a list of hosts') and resource ('that this specific computer has the right to PS remote to'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_computer_ps_remote_users. It provides context about what PS remote rights are and their security implications, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 by mentioning the computer_id parameter and the security context of PS remote rights, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_computer_ps_remote_users or other rights-related tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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