BloodHound MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves users but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a clear, bullet-point-like list of parameters and their meanings. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse without unnecessary verbosity.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral details like error handling or return format. It is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in usage guidelines and transparency, especially for a database query tool.

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 meaningful context for all three parameters: 'domain_id' specifies the domain to query, and 'limit' and 'skip' explain their roles in pagination with defaults. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics beyond the bare schema, making it highly valuable for parameter understanding.

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 ('users from a specific domain in the Bloodhound database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_info' or 'get_foreign_users', which might retrieve similar data but with different scopes or filters.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_user_info' for detailed user data or 'search_objects' for broader searches. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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