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 discloses that this is a read operation (retrieves), includes pagination behavior through limit/skip parameters, and adds important security context about abuse potential. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the returned users come in (just IDs, names, etc.).

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 purpose statement, explanatory context, and clear parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the security warning could be more integrated. The Args section is appropriately formatted but slightly redundant with the preceding text.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential what and how adequately. However, it lacks details about the return format (what user data is included), error handling, and more specific usage guidance. The security context is valuable but doesn't fully compensate for missing operational details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: computer_id identifies the target computer, limit controls result count with default, and skip enables pagination. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format requirements for computer_id or constraints on limit/skip values.

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 the users that have PS remote rights') and resource ('this specific computer in the domain'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_computer_ps_remote_rights (which likely returns rights objects rather than users) and get_computer_admin_users (which focuses on admin rights). The explanation of what PS remote rights are adds valuable context.

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 abuse potential, suggesting this is for security auditing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_computer_ps_remote_rights or get_computer_admin_users, 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.