Skip to main content
Glama
mwnickerson

BloodHound MCP Server

by mwnickerson

get_security_controllers

Retrieve security principals with control relationships over domain objects to identify potential attack paths in Active Directory environments.

Instructions

Retrieves security principals that have control relationships over other objects in the domain.

In Bloodhound terminology, a "controller" is any security principal (user, group, computer)
that has some form of control relationship (like AdminTo, WriteOwner, GenericAll, etc.)
over another security object in the domain. These are NOT domain controllers (AD servers),
but rather represent control edges in the graph.

These control relationships are key for identifying potential attack paths in the domain.

Example controllers might include:
- A user with AdminTo rights on a computer
- A group with GenericAll rights over another group
- A user with WriteOwner rights over another user

Args:
    domain_id: The ID of the domain to query
    limit: Maximum number of control relationships to return (default: 100)
    skip: Number of control relationships to skip for pagination (default: 0)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domain_idYes
limitNo
skipNo
Behavior3/5

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 effectively describes what the tool retrieves (control relationships) and clarifies terminology, but it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond skip/limit parameters, or error conditions. It adds useful context but does not fully cover behavioral traits for a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, explanatory paragraphs, examples, and a dedicated Args section. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, but the examples could be slightly condensed, and the opening could be more front-loaded to immediately state the core functionality before details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining purpose, parameters, and context. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of retrieved controllers) and full behavioral transparency, which would be needed for a perfect score in this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 explicitly lists and explains all three parameters (domain_id, limit, skip) with their purposes and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, making parameter semantics clear and complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves security principals with control relationships over other objects in the domain, using specific terminology ('security principals', 'control relationships', 'AdminTo, WriteOwner, GenericAll'). It explicitly distinguishes from domain controllers (AD servers) and provides concrete examples, making the purpose highly specific and well-differentiated from siblings like get_computer_controllers or get_user_controllers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by explaining Bloodhound terminology and the importance of control relationships for attack paths, which implicitly guides when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_computer_controllers or get_user_controllers, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mwnickerson/bloodhound_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server