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. 'Delete a data product' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to associated resources, or any side effects. It also doesn't address rate limits, error conditions, or confirmation prompts. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, but it lacks necessary elaboration for effective tool use.

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 complexity of a deletion tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. For a destructive operation, this minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and correct invocation 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%, meaning none of the three parameters (data_product_id, hard_delete, recursive) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what data_product_id refers to, what hard_delete versus soft delete entails, or what recursive deletion affects. With low coverage and no compensation in the description, this leaves parameters completely unexplained.

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 'Delete a data product' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('data product'), it lacks specificity about what a data product is in this context or how this deletion differs from other delete operations in the sibling tools (e.g., delete_table, delete_user). It doesn't distinguish itself from similar deletion tools beyond the resource name.

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. There are multiple delete tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_table, delete_user), but no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where delete_data_product is appropriate. It fails to mention any conditions, warnings, or relationships to other tools like create_data_product or get_data_product.

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