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 states the tool 'retrieves a list' (implying read-only, non-destructive) and mentions security implications ('abused for lateral movement'), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior beyond the skip/limit parameters.

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, explanatory context about RDP rights, and a parameter section. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized. However, the security context sentence, while useful, could be more tightly integrated, and the parameter explanations are slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters and purpose. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of the host list), error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps given the complexity and security context implied.

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 provides clear explanations for all three parameters: 'computer_id' (the ID to query), 'limit' (maximum number to return with default), and 'skip' (for pagination with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., ID structure) or validation rules.

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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('list of hosts that this specific computer has the right to RDP to'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_computer_rdp_users' by focusing on rights rather than users, and from 'get_computer_admin_rights' by specifying RDP rights specifically.

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 'RDP rights can be abused for lateral movement and privilege escalation within the domain,' which suggests security/penetration testing scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_computer_rdp_users' or other rights-related tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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