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. It only states what the tool does ('get' implies read-only) but doesn't describe response format, pagination, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While under-specified, it wastes no words and follows a clear structure. Every word earns its place, though more content would be beneficial.

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 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and complexity implied by 'aggregations' and 'report', the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 all 3 parameters (q, aggregation_query, index) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'aggregations' which hints at the 'aggregation_query' parameter but doesn't explain any parameters' purpose, format, or relationships. It adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 data quality report with aggregations' states the basic action (get) and resource (data quality report), but it's vague about what a 'data quality report' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_report' or 'search_aggregate'. It provides minimal but functional purpose information.

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 like 'get_report', 'search_aggregate', or other data quality-related tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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