MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 maximally concise - a single four-word phrase that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description itself is perfectly 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?

For a creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an event subscription is, what data it requires, what the creation process entails, or what to expect as a result. The agent would be guessing about everything beyond the basic action.

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%, meaning the single parameter 'subscription_data' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides absolutely no information about what this parameter should contain, what format it expects, or what constitutes valid subscription data. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 event subscription' clearly states the action (create) and resource (event subscription), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_bot' or 'create_dashboard' - it just follows the same generic 'create X' pattern without specifying what makes an event subscription unique.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when event subscriptions are appropriate, or how this differs from related tools like 'update_event_subscription' or 'get_event_subscription' that appear in the sibling list. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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