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. It states the tool deletes a policy but doesn't explain critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent, what 'hard_delete' and 'recursive' parameters do, if permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand how to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 three parameters (policy_id, hard_delete, recursive) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying 'policy_id' is needed for deletion. It doesn't explain what 'hard_delete' or 'recursive' mean, their defaults, or their impact, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 policy from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_policy' and 'update_policy' by specifying the deletion operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete tools (e.g., 'delete_bot', 'delete_user'), though the resource specificity helps.

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 the policy ID), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion. While the tool name implies it's for deletion, there's no explicit usage context or warnings about irreversible actions.

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