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 operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to dependent resources, whether deletion is reversible, or what the response looks like. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information (action + resource).

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 operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or result format. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about what deletion entails.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't mention 'table_id' (required), 'hard_delete', or 'recursive', leaving their purposes, formats, or effects completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 table from OpenMetadata'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_schema' or 'delete_database' by specifying 'table' as the target, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools beyond the resource type.

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. With many sibling tools including other delete operations (e.g., delete_schema, delete_database) and related operations (e.g., update_table, get_table), there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual usage scenarios.

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