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 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify critical details like whether deletion is reversible, what happens to dependent data, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 (destructive operation with three parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For a delete tool in a system with many entities, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 three parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters, failing to explain 'container_id', 'hard_delete', or 'recursive'. This leaves the agent guessing about their purposes and effects, which is problematic for a destructive operation.

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 the resource ('a container from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_container' and 'get_container' by specifying the destructive operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations (e.g., 'delete_table', '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), conditions for use, or comparisons to other deletion methods. Given the sibling tools include various delete operations, the lack of differentiation 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.