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 only states the action ('create') without detailing permissions required, side effects, response format, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Create a new data product', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, but it meets the criteria for conciseness by being minimal and direct.

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 creating a data product (implied by nested objects in the schema), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context for the agent to understand the tool's behavior, parameters, or outcomes, making it inadequate for effective 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'data_product_data'. It does not explain what this object should contain, its structure, or required fields, leaving the parameter completely undocumented and unusable without external knowledge.

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 data product' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('data product') but lacks detail about what a data product is or what creation entails, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_database' or 'create_pipeline' beyond the resource name.

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, and it fails to reference related tools like 'update_data_product' or 'delete_data_product' for lifecycle management, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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