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. It states the tool deletes a dashboard but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, what 'hard_delete' and 'recursive' parameters do, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a destructive operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No extraneous details or redundancy are present, adhering perfectly to conciseness standards.

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 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter effects, return values, error conditions, or dependencies, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description adds no information about the three parameters ('dashboard_id', 'hard_delete', 'recursive'), their meanings, or how they affect the deletion process. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically undefined.

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 dashboard from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_dashboard' and 'update_dashboard' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete tools (e.g., 'delete_chart', 'delete_table') 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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., permissions), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens to dependent resources. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'delete_dashboard_service' or 'list_dashboards' for verification, leaving usage unclear.

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