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 states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a tool with parameters.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it may be overly concise given the lack of detail 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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'dashboard service' is, what data is returned, or behavioral aspects. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context is needed to be adequately helpful.

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 mentions 'by ID', which maps to the 'service_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter (e.g., optional fields to include in response). 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 'Get dashboard service by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('dashboard service'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, fetch details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_dashboard_service' and 'list_dashboard_services' by specifying retrieval by ID, but doesn't differentiate from 'get_dashboard_service_by_name' (a sibling not listed but implied by pattern).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid service ID), compare to 'list_dashboard_services' for browsing, or specify use cases like fetching specific service details for updates. The description implies usage by ID but offers no further context.

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