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. It mentions deletion but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's reversible, requires admin rights, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletion), or confirmation prompts. The input schema hints at options like 'hard_delete' and 'recursive', but the description doesn't explain these, leaving critical behavior undocumented.

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 no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety, return values, error conditions, or parameter nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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 description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain parameters like 'topic_id' (what format?), 'hard_delete' (permanent vs soft delete?), or 'recursive' (affects related data?). With 3 parameters and no semantic context, this is inadequate.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a topic from OpenMetadata'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_topic' vs 'delete_table' or 'delete_user' beyond the resource type, and lacks specificity about what deletion entails (e.g., permanent vs soft delete).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or implications of deletion. Sibling tools include many other delete operations (e.g., delete_bot, delete_table), but the description doesn't help an agent choose among them or understand context-specific considerations.

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