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. It discloses that this is a search operation with typical return format ('matches on node names'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The behavioral disclosure is basic but not misleading.

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 three sentences plus parameter explanations. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by elaboration and parameter details. There's minimal redundancy, though the second sentence slightly rephrases the first without adding substantial new information.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It covers what the tool does and parameters, but doesn't describe return format details, error handling, or performance characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively in complex scenarios.

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 successfully explains both parameters: 'query' as 'Search text to find nodes by name' and 'search_type' with its two options and default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.

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: 'Search for nodes in the Bloodhound graph by name.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('nodes'), and scope ('Bloodhound graph'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_objects' or 'get_*' tools that retrieve specific node types.

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 through 'find specific nodes...based on a search query' and mentions typical results, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_objects' or 'get_*' tools for specific node types. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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