BloodHound MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and explains what foreign groups represent, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond skip/limit defaults, or what the return format looks like. The security context about lateral movement is helpful but doesn't cover operational behavior.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, definition, security context, and parameter details in separate sections. Every sentence adds value, though the security context sentence could be more integrated. Slightly verbose but efficiently communicates necessary 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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does adequately cover purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on return format, error conditions, or examples, leaving gaps in operational understanding. The security context adds value but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral transparency.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining domain_id, limit, and skip with their purposes and defaults. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't elaborate on domain_id format or validation rules.

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 groups from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database', with a detailed definition of what foreign groups are. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cross-domain group memberships, unlike other tools targeting computers, users, GPOs, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to similar tools like get_groups or get_foreign_users. The description assumes the user knows when foreign group analysis is needed.

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