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 this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, and hints at security context, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, pagination details beyond skip/limit, or what the return format looks like. For a database query tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, definition, and security context, followed by a structured Args section. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The Args section is clear but could be integrated more seamlessly; overall, it's 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and basic context, but lacks details on return values, error handling, authentication, or performance considerations. For a database query tool in a security context, this leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: domain_id ('ID of the domain to query'), limit ('Maximum number of outbound trusts to return'), and skip ('Number of outbound trusts to skip for pagination'), including default values. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain domain_id format or constraints.

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 resource 'outbound trusts from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes outbound trusts from inbound by defining them as 'trust relationships where the domain trusts other domains', which helps differentiate from sibling tool 'get_inbound_trusts'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 by explaining what outbound trusts are ('potential targets for accessing resources within another domain') and their security implications, which suggests when this tool might be relevant. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_inbound_trusts' or other trust-related tools, 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.