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 specify permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, side effects, or error conditions. It mentions no rate limits, confirmation prompts, or what happens to associated data (though parameters hint at this). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a test suite') and specifies the context ('from OpenMetadata') efficiently. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For a delete operation, this omission could lead to misuse or errors, as the agent lacks necessary context for safe and effective invocation.

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 adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'test_suite_id' is, what 'hard_delete' or 'recursive' mean, or their implications. With 3 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving critical semantics unclear for proper tool invocation.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('test suite from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_test_case' or 'delete_test_suite_execution_summary' (if they existed), which would require more specificity about what a 'test suite' entails compared to other deletable entities.

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., needing the test_suite_id), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens if the suite is in use. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete_test_case, delete_table), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about context-specific usage.

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