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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'metric' is in OpenMetadata, what the tool returns, error conditions, or provide any context beyond the basic action. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('metric_data') documented only as a generic object type. The description adds no information about what 'metric_data' should contain, its required fields, format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving the parameter essentially 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new metric in OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from deletion or update operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create_' siblings like create_dashboard or create_table beyond the resource type.

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 (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like update_metric or delete_metric. The agent must 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.