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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves GPOs, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the 'skip' parameter, or what the output format looks like. The security context hint is useful but insufficient for full 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. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, the second adds context, and the parameter explanations are concise and front-loaded. There's minimal waste, though the security context sentence could be more integrated with usage guidelines.

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 adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well and states the purpose, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or output structure. For a tool in a security context with sibling alternatives, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 clearly explains each parameter: 'ou_id' as the OU to query, 'limit' as the maximum number of GPOs to return with a default, and 'skip' for pagination with a default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameter usage clear.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('GPOs within a specific OU in the domain'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_gpos' or 'get_gpo_ous', which likely retrieve GPOs at different scopes, so it falls short of 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a potential use case ('identify potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation'), but this is context-specific rather than operational guidance. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools like 'get_gpos' or 'get_gpo_ous'.

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