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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to dependent resources, or what the response looks like. The description mentions the system context ('OpenMetadata') but provides no operational details.

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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loads the essential information (delete operation on glossary resource).

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 operation with 3 parameters (one required) and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely inadequate. No output schema exists, and the description doesn't explain what happens after deletion, what errors might occur, or how to interpret the parameters. The combination of no annotations, no parameter documentation, and minimal behavioral context makes this incomplete for safe 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 3 parameters (glossary_id, hard_delete, recursive) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about these parameters—not what glossary_id refers to, what hard_delete means, or what recursive deletion entails. This leaves critical parameters completely undocumented.

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 glossary from OpenMetadata'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (like delete_bot, delete_chart, etc.) beyond specifying the glossary 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual considerations. There's no mention of when deletion is appropriate versus other operations like update_glossary or create_glossary, nor any warnings about consequences.

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