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 permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected output format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 coverage, no output schema, and nested object parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'test_suite_data' as an object type but no details on its structure or content. The description adds no information about this parameter, such as required fields, examples, or constraints, leaving it completely undocumented and unusable for an agent.

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 executable test suite' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'executable test suite' but lacks detail on what an executable test suite entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_basic_test_suite' or 'create_test_case', leaving the purpose vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_basic_test_suite' or 'create_test_case', nor any mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts. The description provides no usage instructions, making it misleading for an agent to select the correct tool.

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