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 mentions pagination behavior through skip/limit parameters and implies a read-only operation ('retrieves'), but doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no controllers exist. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. All sentences earn their place, though the second sentence ('Controllers are entities that have control over the specified user') could be considered slightly redundant with the first. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well and provides usage context, but doesn't describe the return format, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a security-focused tool that likely returns structured data about controllers, more detail about the response would be helpful.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents all three parameters: user_id ('The ID of the user to query'), limit ('Maximum number of controllers to return'), and skip ('Number of controllers to skip for pagination'), including default values. This completely compensates 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 ('controllers of a specific user'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on user controllers rather than computer/group/GPO controllers, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_user_controllables or get_user_admin_rights.

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 provides implied usage context by stating 'This can be used to help identify paths to gain access to a specific user,' which suggests security/privilege escalation scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_controllables or get_user_admin_rights, nor does it 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.