MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'create' without detailing outcomes, such as whether the classification is mutable, what happens on conflict, or if it requires specific authentication. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the tool's basic action, making it highly concise and well-structured for its limited content.

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 complexity (a mutation with nested object parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter requirements, behavioral implications, or expected results, making it inadequate for effective tool use.

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%, with one parameter 'classification_data' of type object but no schema details. The description does not explain what 'classification_data' should contain, such as required fields like name or description, leaving the parameter's meaning and structure completely 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 'Create a new classification in OpenMetadata' restates the tool name 'create_classification' with minimal additional context. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'classification' but lacks detail on what a classification entails in OpenMetadata or how it differs from similar resources like tags or glossaries. This is essentially a tautology with minor elaboration.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as required permissions or existing classifications, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_tag' or 'create_glossary'. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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