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 fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not address permissions, irreversible effects, side effects, or response format for a destructive operation, leaving critical gaps for safe invocation.

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, making it highly concise. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity, but structurally it is front-loaded and efficient.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential details on behavior, parameters, and outcomes, failing to compensate for missing structured data.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain 'service_id', 'hard_delete', or 'recursive', leaving all three parameters undocumented and their meanings unclear beyond titles.

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 database service' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('database service'), but lacks detail on scope or differentiation from sibling delete tools like 'delete_database' or 'delete_database_service_by_name' (implied), offering only basic clarity.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description does not mention sibling tools or contextual usage, leaving the agent without direction for selection in a server with many delete operations.

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