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 states the tool retrieves computers, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns partial data, or handles errors. The mention of 'lateral movement and privilege escalation' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive environment.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, adds usage context, and lists parameters with clear explanations. Each sentence earns its place, and there's no unnecessary verbosity. A perfect score is reserved for exceptional cases with even tighter phrasing.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or return format. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at what's returned (e.g., a list of computer objects), but it doesn't, leaving 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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter: 'ou_id' as 'The ID of the OU to query,' 'limit' as 'Maximum number of computers to return (default: 100),' and 'skip' as 'Number of computers to skip for pagination (default: 0).' This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., OU ID syntax).

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 computers within a specific OU in the domain.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('computers within a specific OU'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_computers' or 'get_computer_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'This can be used to identify potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation,' which hints at a security/penetration testing context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_computers' or 'get_ou_info.' No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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