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 full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, affects dependent resources, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place.

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 deletion tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral implications, success criteria, or error conditions. The context demands much more comprehensive documentation than provided.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'pipeline_id', 'hard_delete', or 'recursive' mean. For a 3-parameter tool with complete schema coverage gap, the description adds zero value beyond what's in the bare schema.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a pipeline from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_bot' or 'delete_chart' by specifying the pipeline resource type. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a soft or hard deletion, which would make it more specific.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing pipeline_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar deletion tools for other resources. With many sibling deletion tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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