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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, what 'hard_delete' and 'recursive' parameters actually do, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 sized for a basic delete operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 destructive tool with 3 parameters (including potentially significant ones like 'hard_delete' and 'recursive'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during deletion, what the parameters control, or what to expect as a result, leaving the agent with inadequate context for safe invocation.

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 no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about the three parameters (chart_id, hard_delete, recursive) beyond what's in the schema titles. For a deletion tool with potentially destructive parameters, this is inadequate compensation for the schema gap.

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 chart from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other delete_* siblings (like delete_dashboard or delete_table), which all follow the same pattern but target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing chart_id), when not to use it, or how it relates to other tools (e.g., whether to use delete_chart versus update_chart with a status change).

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