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 for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's purpose and parameters but doesn't address key behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results return, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential performance implications. The description provides basic functional context but misses operational details needed for safe invocation.

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 purpose statement, context explanation, and parameter documentation in separate sections. It's appropriately sized (4 sentences plus parameter details) with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate functional context but has significant gaps. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters, but doesn't describe return values, error conditions, or operational constraints. Given the complexity of graph analysis and attack path planning, more behavioral context would be beneficial for safe agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clearly explaining all three parameters in the Args section: 'source_node: ID of the source node', 'target_node: ID of the target node', and 'edge_type: Type of edge (relationship) between the nodes'. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types (integer, integer, string), though it could provide more detail about edge_type values or ID formats.

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 ('Find valid relay targets') and resource ('for a given edge in the Bloodhound graph'), with explicit context about what relay targets represent ('potential nodes that could be used to relay an attack or privilege escalation between two nodes') and their purpose ('critical for advanced attack path planning'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on relay target identification rather than querying specific entities or relationships.

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 ('for a given edge in the Bloodhound graph') and purpose ('critical for advanced attack path planning'), suggesting it's used when analyzing attack paths involving relay nodes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_shortest_path' or 'search_graph', 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.