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 whether this requires admin permissions, if deletion is reversible, what happens to team members/data, or any rate limits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious implication of deletion.

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.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, success/failure responses, or usage context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 schema. The description provides no information about team_id format, what hard_delete means (permanent vs soft delete), or what recursive deletion entails (sub-teams, associated resources). With 3 parameters completely undocumented, the description fails to compensate.

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 'Delete a team from OpenMetadata' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (team), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_user or delete_domain. It lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'team' in OpenMetadata context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., team must exist), consequences, or when to choose hard_delete/recursive options. With many sibling delete tools, this omission is significant.

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