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 mentions pagination behavior through 'skip' and 'limit' parameters, but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list structure, user attributes), error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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: purpose statement, use case example, and parameter documentation. The parameter section is well-structured with clear explanations. The security use case sentence could be considered slightly extraneous but adds context. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does a good job with parameter semantics but lacks output format details, error handling, and behavioral context. It's adequate for basic usage but incomplete for full agent understanding. The security use case adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing structural information.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), but the description provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'ou_id' identifies the OU to query, 'limit' specifies maximum results with default, and 'skip' handles pagination with default. This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaningful context beyond basic type information.

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 specific action ('Retrieves'), resource ('users within a specific OU in the domain'), and scope ('within a specific OU'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_users' (general user retrieval) or 'get_ou_computers' (different resource type). The purpose is unambiguous and well-specified.

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 like 'get_users' (all users) or 'get_group_members' (users in groups). It mentions a security use case ('identify potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation'), but this is an example application rather than usage guidance. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context is provided.

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