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 clarifies the security implications of RDP rights ('can be abused for lateral movement and privilege escalation'), which adds valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits), error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a read operation.

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 and appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, adds explanatory context about RDP rights, and lists parameters with clear explanations. Every sentence earns its place, but the security warning, while useful, slightly extends beyond minimal necessity, preventing a perfect score for pure conciseness.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and parameters well, but lacks details on output format (e.g., what data is returned per user), error handling, or integration with sibling tools. This makes it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive for agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description compensates fully by explaining all three parameters: 'computer_id' (the ID to query), 'limit' (maximum number to return with default), and 'skip' (for pagination with default). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear and complete.

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: 'retrieves the users that have RDP rights to this specific computer in the domain.' It includes a specific verb ('retrieves'), resource ('users with RDP rights'), and scope ('this specific computer in the domain'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_computer_rdp_rights' or 'get_computer_ps_remote_users', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that 'RDP rights can be abused for lateral movement and privilege escalation,' which hints at security analysis contexts, but doesn't specify prerequisites, compare to similar tools (e.g., 'get_computer_rdp_rights'), or indicate when not to use it. This leaves the agent with insufficient decision-making context.

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