MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a bot but lacks critical details: whether deletion is reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., on related entities), or error conditions. The description doesn't mention the 'hard_delete' and 'recursive' parameters' implications, leaving the agent unaware of behavioral nuances beyond the basic action.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Delete a bot'), making it easy to parse. There's no redundancy or fluff, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 destructive operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: what happens post-deletion, error handling, or the meaning of optional parameters. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient information for safe and effective use, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools in the list.

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%, so the schema provides only parameter names and types without explanations. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'bot_id' refers to, what 'hard_delete' or 'recursive' mean, or their default behaviors. For a tool with 3 parameters (1 required), this leaves the agent guessing about input requirements and effects, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a bot from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_bot', 'get_bot', and 'update_bot' by specifying deletion rather than creation, retrieval, or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations (e.g., 'delete_user', 'delete_table'), which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the bot_id), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens to associated data. While siblings include 'delete_*' tools for various resources, the description offers no context for choosing this specific deletion tool over others or related operations like 'update_bot'.

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