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. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('retrieves'), mentions the security context ('can be abused for lateral movement'), and implies pagination behavior through the skip parameter. However, it doesn't disclose error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when the user_id doesn't 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 appropriately sized with four sentences: purpose statement, technical explanation, security context, and parameter documentation. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality. The security warning sentence could be considered slightly extraneous but provides useful context.

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 query tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but doesn't describe the return format, error handling, or performance characteristics. The security context is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for missing operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for all three parameters: user_id identifies the target, limit controls result volume with a default, and skip enables pagination. The description adds value beyond the bare schema by explaining what 'remote PowerShell rights' are and how parameters relate to the query.

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'), the resource ('remote PowerShell rights'), and the target ('of a specific user within the domain'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_computer_ps_remote_rights by focusing on user rights rather than computer rights, and from get_user_info by specifying a particular security attribute.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the security implications of remote PowerShell rights, it doesn't specify scenarios where this query is appropriate or contrast it with other user-rights tools like get_user_admin_rights or get_user_rdp_rights. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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