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 data (read-only implied by 'Retrieves'), mentions security implications, and hints at pagination via skip/limit parameters. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 with three sentences: purpose, security context, and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, though the security implications sentence could be more concise. No wasted words, but minor room for tightening.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well and provides security context, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints, which are important for a tool with security implications.

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%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: domain_id ('ID of the domain to query'), limit ('Maximum number of DC Syncers to return'), and skip ('Number of DC Syncers to skip for pagination'), including default values. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 security principals') and resource ('given the "GetChanges" and "GetChangesAll" permissions on the domain'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_domains or get_users by focusing on DC Sync attack vectors. It explicitly identifies the security principals as users, groups, and computers with specific permissions.

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 for security auditing by mentioning 'DCSync attack' and 'targets for lateral movement or privilege escalation', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_security_controllers or other sibling tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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