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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't address critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what 'hard_delete' and 'recursive' parameters do, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a destructive tool with 3 parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral traits.

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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient despite its limitations in completeness.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the implications of deletion, parameter behaviors, success/failure responses, or how this tool relates to the broader OpenMetadata context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters beyond what's in the schema titles. It doesn't explain what 'classification_id' refers to, what 'hard_delete' versus soft delete means, or what 'recursive' deletion entails. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation 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 classification from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_classification' and 'update_classification' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations (e.g., 'delete_tag', 'delete_user') 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a classification_id), when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or what happens to associated data. With many sibling tools including 'delete_*' variants and 'update_classification', the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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