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. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only) and lists example attributes (name, domain, other attributes), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'other attributes' specifically includes. The reconnaissance mention adds some context but lacks operational details.

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 with three sentences plus an Args section. The first sentence states the purpose, the second elaborates on information retrieved, and the third provides usage context. The structure is front-loaded with the core function, though the reconnaissance sentence could be more precise.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the parameter semantics and general purpose. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of 'other attributes'), error handling, or dependencies, leaving gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains 'ou_id' as 'The ID of the OU to query', adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage and only provides a title 'Ou Id'). This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't specify the ID format or source.

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 retrieves information about a specific OU in a specific domain, specifying the verb (retrieves) and resource (OU information). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_ous' (which likely lists OUs) by focusing on a single OU. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other OU-related tools like 'get_ou_computers' or 'get_ou_users'.

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 ('to conduct reconnaissance and start formulating and targeting OUs'), suggesting this is for initial information gathering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_ous' for listing OUs or 'get_ou_info' for details), nor does it 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.