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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the chart doesn't exist, rate limits, or the format of returned details. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 read operation with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how to use the optional 'fields' parameter, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The context signals indicate significant gaps that the description doesn't address.

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?

The description mentions 'by ID' which corresponds to the 'chart_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the optional 'fields' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one required, one optional), the description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific chart'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_chart_by_name', which appears to serve a similar purpose but uses a different identifier. The description is specific but lacks 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 like 'get_chart_by_name' or 'list_charts'. It mentions 'by ID' but doesn't explain when ID-based lookup is preferred over name-based lookup or when to use this versus a list operation. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are included.

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