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 but provides limited behavioral information. It mentions this reveals 'underlying components' of complex edges, which suggests a read-only analytical function, but doesn't disclose important details like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the analysis returns, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each add value: purpose statement, technical context, utility explanation, and parameter overview. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words while covering essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does and its parameters. However, it lacks important details about the analysis output format, error handling, and specific behavioral constraints that would be needed for complete understanding, especially given the security-focused context suggested by sibling tools.

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 adds some value by explaining the three parameters: source_node, target_node, and edge_type with examples ('MemberOf', 'AdminTo', 'CanRDP'). However, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap - it doesn't explain what format node IDs should be, whether edge_type has specific valid values, or provide complete parameter semantics.

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: 'Analyze the components of a complex edge between two nodes' with specific examples ('HasPath', 'AdminTo') and explains it reveals underlying relationships. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on edge composition analysis rather than querying specific entities or relationships.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: 'This is useful for understanding exactly how security principals are connected' and mentions it's for analyzing high-level edges composed of multiple relationships. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings.

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