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 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: what 'hard_delete' and 'recursive' parameters do (e.g., permanent vs. soft deletion, cascading effects), whether deletion requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with 3 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 directly states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 deletion tool with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes. For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to use it safely and correctly.

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 (metric_id, hard_delete, recursive) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what metric_id refers to, what hard_delete vs. soft delete means, or what recursive deletion entails. With low coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 the resource ('a metric from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other delete_* siblings in the server (like delete_bot, delete_chart, etc.), which all follow the same pattern but target different resources.

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's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the metric to exist), when not to use it, or how it relates to other tools like delete_metric_by_name (if it existed) or update_metric. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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