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 effectively describes the security implications ('can be abused for privilege escalation and lateral movement'), which is valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics like rate limits or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, explanatory context, and a well-organized parameter section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality first.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, parameter meanings, and security context. The main gap is lack of information about return format or what the retrieved rights look like, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what 'user_id' represents ('ID of the user to query') and provides clear semantics for 'limit' and 'skip' parameters including their default values and purposes (pagination). This compensates well 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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('constrained delegation rights of a specific user within the domain'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_computer_constrained_delegation_rights' by specifying user-focused retrieval rather than computer-focused.

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 by mentioning 'within the domain' and explaining what constrained delegation rights are, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_info' or other user-focused tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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