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 that OUs are 'key in understanding the structure of the domain,' which hints at a read-only, informational purpose, but does not explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, if it requires specific permissions, or details about rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling.

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 front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by explanatory context about OUs, and ending with parameter details. The structure is logical, though the 'Args' section is cut off ('default' incomplete for 'skip'), slightly affecting clarity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., pagination, errors), and output information, making it minimally viable for an agent to use correctly.

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 documents all three parameters, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It explains 'domain_id' as 'The ID of the domain to query,' 'limit' with its default and purpose, and 'skip' for pagination, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of 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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieves Organizational Units (OUs) from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieves'), resource ('Organizational Units'), and context ('Bloodhound database'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ou_info' or 'get_ou_computers'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains what OUs are and their importance, but offers no context on prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or when other sibling tools (e.g., 'get_ou_info' for detailed OU data) should be used instead.

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