BloodHound MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the 'skip' parameter, error conditions, or what format the returned computers data takes. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are clear and efficient, though the formatting with 'Args:' and bullet-like indentation is slightly inconsistent. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks critical context. It doesn't describe the return format (what 'computers' data looks like), error handling, or how this tool fits within the Bloodhound query ecosystem. For a database retrieval tool with many similar siblings, more contextual guidance would be helpful.

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 adds meaningful context for all three parameters that isn't in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It explains that 'domain_id' identifies 'the domain to query', 'limit' sets the 'maximum number of computers to return' with a default, and 'skip' is for 'pagination' with a default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't elaborate on domain_id format or pagination mechanics.

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 computers from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database.' This specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('computers'), and scope ('from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_computer_info' or 'search_objects', which reduces clarity in a crowded namespace.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_computer_info', 'search_objects', 'get_ou_computers'), there's no indication of when this specific retrieval tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what distinguishes it from other query methods in the Bloodhound context.

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