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. It states 'Get details' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the details are returned in, if there are rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the name doesn't exist). For a read tool 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details'), making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 read operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, return values, error handling, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many alternatives, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it 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 the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by name' which hints at the 'name' parameter, but doesn't explain what the 'fields' parameter does (e.g., whether it filters returned fields or specifies additional metadata). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond implying one parameter's purpose.

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 the resource 'details of a specific classification by name', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_classification' (which presumably retrieves classifications by ID or other means) or 'list_classifications', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific 'by_name' variant versus alternatives.

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_classification' or 'list_classifications'. It mentions 'by name' which implies usage when you have the classification name, but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other retrieval methods available in the sibling tools list.

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