BloodHound MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval but doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond default parameters, error conditions, or response format. The security context hint is useful but insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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, usage context, and parameter documentation. All sentences earn their place, though the security context could be more integrated. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool without being verbose.

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?

For a read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well and provides some security context, but lacks details about return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints. Without annotations, more completeness would be beneficial for agent invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage. It explains all three parameters: 'ou_id' (ID of OU to query), 'limit' (maximum groups with default), and 'skip' (pagination offset with default). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 the resource 'groups within a specific OU in the domain.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_groups' (all groups) and 'get_ou_computers' (computers in OU) by specifying OU-scoped group retrieval.

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 second sentence provides implied usage context ('identify potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation'), suggesting security assessment scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_groups' or 'get_ou_users', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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