MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add or update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens on conflicts, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, a complex nested parameter, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what lineage means, what entities can be linked, what data format is expected, or what happens after execution. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage with one complex parameter ('lineage_data' as an object type). The description provides no information about what 'lineage_data' should contain, its structure, required fields, or examples. This leaves the single parameter completely undocumented, creating significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 'Add or update lineage between entities' clearly states the action (add/update) and target (lineage between entities), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_lineage' by indicating creation/modification rather than removal. However, it doesn't specify what 'lineage' means in this context or what types of entities are involved.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when lineage should be added versus updated, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'get_lineage' or 'delete_lineage'. The agent must infer usage from 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.