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 the action ('Create') but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a container ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is appropriate for a simple tool definition.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter's semantics, behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for reliable agent 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 ('container_data') documented only as an object type in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'container_data' should contain, such as required fields like name or type, leaving the parameter's meaning and structure completely unspecified beyond its basic type.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new container in OpenMetadata'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_database' or 'create_table', which also create resources in OpenMetadata, so it doesn't fully distinguish its scope from similar 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'update_container' for modifications or 'list_containers' for viewing existing ones. It lacks context on prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to 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.