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 mentions the tool retrieves data, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. The security context hint is useful but insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining the security relevance and parameter defaults. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the security hint into the main purpose, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints like pagination limits. This makes it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive for safe and effective use.

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 meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'group_id' is explained as 'The ID of the group to query,' and 'limit' and 'skip' are described with their purposes and defaults. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, providing clear usage context for each parameter.

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: 'Retrieves the group memberships of a specific group within the domain.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('group memberships'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_group_members' or 'get_user_memberships', which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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,' suggesting it's for security analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_group_members' or other sibling tools, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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