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 clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieves'), which is appropriate. It adds useful context about DCOM rights' security relevance, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no rights are found. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 upfront, followed by explanatory context about DCOM rights, then a well-organized parameter section. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, the second explains DCOM rights, the third provides security context, and the Args section documents parameters. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters, but doesn't describe the return format (what DCOM rights data looks like), pagination behavior beyond skip/limit parameters, or error scenarios. The security context is helpful, but operational details are missing for full agent understanding.

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 a helpful Args section that explains all three parameters beyond what the schema offers (0% schema description coverage). It clarifies that user_id identifies 'the user to query', limit controls 'maximum number of DCOM rights to return', and skip enables 'pagination'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't specify format expectations for user_id or constraints on limit/skip values.

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 ('Retrieves'), resource ('DCOM rights'), and target ('of a specific user within the domain'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_computer_dcom_rights by focusing on user-level rights rather than computer-level, and from get_user_info by specifying DCOM rights as the data retrieved.

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 explaining what DCOM rights are and their security implications ('can be abused for privilege escalation and lateral movement'), which suggests this tool is for security auditing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_info or get_computer_dcom_rights, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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