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 indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieves') and provides context about the security significance of the data. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the skip parameter, or what happens when no results are found.

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 focused paragraphs: purpose statement, definition clarification, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the security context sentence could be more tightly integrated with the purpose statement.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well and provides security context, but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or how results are structured. The absence of output schema increases the need for return value documentation.

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 compensates well by explaining all three parameters in the Args section: domain_id identifies the target domain, limit controls result count with default, and skip enables pagination with default. This adds crucial meaning 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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('foreign admins from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database'), with a precise definition of what 'Foreign Admins' are. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_foreign_users or get_foreign_groups by focusing specifically on administrative privileges across domains.

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 analysis ('potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_computer_admin_rights or get_user_admin_rights. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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