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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what happens on errors, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool interacting with a database.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the subsequent lines document each parameter concisely. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 complexity of database retrieval, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'groups' means in this context, the return format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with three parameters and no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 provides clear explanations for all three parameters: 'domain_id' specifies the domain to query, 'limit' defines the maximum return count with a default, and 'skip' explains pagination with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like domain_id structure.

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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('groups from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_foreign_groups' or 'get_group_info', but the domain-specific focus is implied. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_foreign_groups', 'get_group_info', and 'get_group_members', there's no indication of when this specific retrieval is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other group-related queries. Usage is implied only by the tool name and basic description.

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