get_database_service
Retrieve a database service by its unique ID from OpenMetadata. Optionally specify fields to filter the response.
Instructions
Get database service by ID
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service_id | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
Retrieve a database service by its unique ID from OpenMetadata. Optionally specify fields to filter the response.
Get database service by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service_id | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral details such as read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. No annotations are present to supplement this information.
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 very short (five words) and to the point, but it is too minimal to be effective. It lacks structural elements like separate sentences for context or parameter details.
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?
There is no output schema, yet the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., the full database service object). For a simple get operation, the description should at least imply the return value structure.
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 does not explain the 'fields' parameter at all, despite 0% schema description coverage. It only mentions retrieval by ID, leaving the optional parameter's purpose and usage unclear.
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 database service by ID' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (database service), and specifies the identifier type (ID). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_database_service_by_name', which retrieves by name instead of ID.
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_database_service_by_name'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yangkyeongmo/mcp-server-openmetadata'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server