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 critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, 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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks critical context: parameter meanings, behavioral implications (permanence, side effects), prerequisites, and response format. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about the three parameters (test_case_id, hard_delete, recursive) - their meaning, format, or implications. With 0% coverage and no compensation in the description, the agent lacks essential parameter semantics beyond basic types from the schema.

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 test case from OpenMetadata'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete_* siblings (like delete_test_suite, delete_table, etc.) beyond specifying the resource type, which is adequate but not optimal for sibling differentiation.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing the test_case_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like delete_test_suite or update_test_case. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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