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 discloses that the tool retrieves data (read-only implied) and mentions pagination via skip/limit, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'controllables' specifically entail beyond 'Security Principals'. Some behavioral context is given but incomplete.

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, elaboration, and security context. The Args section is clear but could be integrated more seamlessly. No wasted words, though the security context sentence might be slightly redundant.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks details on return format (e.g., list of objects, fields), error cases, or deeper behavioral traits like authentication requirements.

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 adds meaning by explaining group_id queries a specific group, limit caps results with a default, and skip enables pagination with a default. However, it doesn't specify data types or constraints (e.g., limit range), leaving some gaps.

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 ('Security Principals within the domain that a specific group has administrative control over'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on what a group controls (e.g., vs. get_group_controllers which likely shows who controls the group).

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, privilege escalation, and persistence'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_group_controllers or get_computer_controllables. No 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.