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 full burden. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic creation operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a database in this context, what data is needed, or what to expect after creation. The agent would struggle 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'database_data' is an object with no schema details. The description provides no information about what fields 'database_data' should contain, what database properties are required, or any examples. This leaves the parameter 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new database in OpenMetadata'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_database_service' or 'create_schema', which could create ambiguity in a metadata management context.

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. With many sibling 'create_' tools (e.g., create_database_service, create_schema, create_table), the agent has no indication of whether this is for logical databases, physical instances, or how it relates to other entities in OpenMetadata.

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