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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to dependent objects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description merely states what the tool does without explaining how it behaves.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information (delete operation on a schema).

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 description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the behavioral implications of deletion, doesn't clarify parameter meanings, and provides no guidance about usage context or alternatives. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured 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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't explain what 'schema_id' refers to, what 'hard_delete' versus soft delete means, or what 'recursive' deletion entails. For a destructive operation with 3 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 target resource ('a database schema from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from other delete operations in the sibling tool list (like delete_table, delete_database, etc.), which would require specifying what makes schema deletion unique.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing specific permissions), consequences of deletion, or when to choose hard vs soft deletion. Given the destructive nature of the operation and the presence of sibling tools like 'delete_table' and 'delete_database', this lack of context is problematic.

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