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 and delivers excellent behavioral transparency. It explains HTTP response code interpretation (200, 404, 400, 401/403, 5xx), clarifies that 404 is not an error, and describes authentication/permission issues. This goes well beyond basic functionality disclosure.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then behavioral details, then parameter explanations, then return value description. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and return format. The HTTP response code explanation is particularly valuable for a database query tool, making this description self-sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It clarifies that 'query' is 'The Cypher query to execute' and 'include_properties' controls 'Whether to include node/edge properties in the response', adding crucial semantic meaning not present in the bare 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 specific action ('Run a custom Cypher query') on a specific resource ('BloodHound Neo4j database'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'interpret_cypher_result' and 'search_graph' by focusing on raw query execution rather than interpretation or search operations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (running custom Cypher queries) and implicitly suggests alternatives through sibling tool names like 'search_graph' for simpler searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide direct comparisons with specific alternatives.

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