BloodHound MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that this is a retrieval/query operation (not a mutation) and hints at security analysis use cases, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It adds some behavioral context (e.g., pagination via skip/limit) but is incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with a purpose statement, definition, usage hint, and parameter details in a bullet-like format. It is appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the usage hint could be more integrated. Every sentence adds value, making it 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and some context, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or deeper behavioral traits (e.g., what happens if domain_id is invalid). It is adequate for basic use but has gaps for a tool in a security analysis context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'domain_id' as the ID to query, 'limit' as maximum returns with default 100, and 'skip' for pagination with default 0. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting all parameters.

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 'inbound trusts from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database,' with a precise definition of 'inbound trusts' as trust relationships where the domain is trusted by others. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_outbound_trusts' by specifying directionality, making it highly specific and differentiated.

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 defining inbound trusts and mentioning they are 'potential targets for moving to other external domains or other domains within the forest,' which suggests when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_outbound_trusts' or other trust-related tools, 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.