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. It discloses that the tool retrieves data (implying read-only behavior) and hints at security implications, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond skip/limit, or what the return format looks like. It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensively.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by definition and context, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more tightly.

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 and purpose. However, as a data retrieval tool in a security context with no annotations, it should ideally cover more about return values, error conditions, or usage examples to be fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents all three parameters (domain_id, limit, skip) with clear meanings, including defaults and purposes like pagination. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints for domain_id.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('foreign users from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database'), plus provides a detailed definition of 'Foreign Users' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_users or get_user_info. It explicitly explains the security relevance of these entities.

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 context by mentioning 'potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation,' which suggests when this tool might be relevant in security assessments. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_users or get_user_memberships, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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