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. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't explain what deletion entails (e.g., irreversible removal, permissions required, effects on associated data). The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for conveying the basic purpose, though it lacks 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?

For a destructive mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It states what the tool does at a high level but provides no guidance, parameter explanations, behavioral context, or output information.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain role_id, hard_delete, or recursive. For a tool with 3 parameters (1 required), this leaves significant gaps in understanding what inputs are needed and what they mean.

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 role from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_user, delete_team) beyond specifying the resource type, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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., role must exist), consequences, or when to choose other tools like update_role or get_role. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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