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' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any error conditions. It mentions nothing about the 'hard_delete' parameter's effect or implications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 wasted words: 'Delete an event subscription'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. In terms of brevity and structure, it's optimal, though this comes at the cost of detail.

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 (a destructive delete operation with a boolean parameter affecting behavior), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what an event subscription is, the consequences of deletion, how to identify the subscription_id, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, more context is needed to be minimally viable.

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 the input schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (subscription_id and hard_delete). The tool description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what subscription_id refers to, what a 'hard delete' entails versus a soft delete, or the implications of the default value. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is severely limited.

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 an event subscription' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('event subscription'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (like delete_bot, delete_chart, etc.) beyond specifying the resource type. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what distinguishes event subscription deletion from other deletions.

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. Given the sibling tools include 'delete_event_subscription' and 'update_event_subscription', there's no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or any prerequisites for deletion. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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