MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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 states 'Add usage data for entities,' implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies data.

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 a single, concise sentence, which is appropriately sized. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, as it lacks necessary details. While front-loaded, it fails to earn its place by providing sufficient value.

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 likely complexity (a write operation with a nested object parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent unable to understand how to use the 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaningful information about the parameter. It mentions 'usage data' but does not explain what this object should contain, its structure, or examples, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented.

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 usage data for entities' restates the tool name 'add_usage_data' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'add' and resource 'usage data' but lacks detail on what 'usage data' entails or what 'entities' refers to, failing to distinguish it meaningfully from siblings like 'get_usage_by_entity' or 'get_entity_usage_summary'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no indication of appropriate scenarios or how it differs from related tools like 'get_usage_by_entity' or 'get_entity_usage_summary'.

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