MCP Server for OpenMetadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' suggests a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what 'details' includes. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 zero 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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what details are returned, parameter formats, error conditions, or how this differs from sibling retrieval tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'fqn' (fully qualified name) format is expected or what 'fields' parameter controls. The description mentions 'by fully qualified name' which hints at the fqn parameter's purpose, but provides no syntax guidance or examples, leaving both parameters inadequately documented.

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 details') and resource ('a specific dashboard'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard' (which likely retrieves by ID) or 'list_dashboards' (which lists multiple dashboards), though the 'by fully qualified name' specification provides some implicit distinction.

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_dashboard' or 'list_dashboards'. It mentions 'by fully qualified name' which implies a specific lookup method, but doesn't clarify prerequisites, when this is preferred over other retrieval methods, or what happens if the dashboard doesn't exist.

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