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 states the tool creates a user, implying a write operation, but fails to mention critical details like authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., email notifications), error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity in structure.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits essential details like parameter specifics, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent invocation in this environment.

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 description provides no information about the 'user_data' parameter beyond what the schema indicates (an object). It doesn't explain what fields 'user_data' should contain (e.g., name, email, role) or their formats, failing to compensate for the low coverage and leaving the parameter largely 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 ('new user in OpenMetadata'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bot' or 'create_team' beyond the resource type, and the title is null, leaving some room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 like 'update_user' or 'delete_user', nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions or system context. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, offering only basic usage context.

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