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 describes the core functionality but lacks important behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this requires special permissions, what happens when the user doesn't exist, what format the memberships are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. The security context hint is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 a brief explanation of what memberships are, a security context note, and a parameter section. While efficient, the second sentence ('Group memberships are the groups...') is somewhat redundant with the first and could be tightened. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters well, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally describe the return format (e.g., list of group objects with IDs/names) and any important constraints. The security context is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral details.

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 clearly explains that 'user_id' identifies 'the user to query,' 'limit' controls 'maximum number of memberships to return,' and 'skip' enables pagination by specifying 'number of memberships to skip.' Default values are also provided, giving practical usage guidance not present in the schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('group memberships of a specific user within the domain'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_group_members' (which gets members of a group) and 'get_user_info' (which gets general user information) by focusing specifically on user-to-group membership 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 provides implied usage context by mentioning 'potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation,' suggesting security/audit scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_info' or 'get_group_members,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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