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 the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling (e.g., if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or what the return value includes (e.g., JSON object). For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with the core action ('Get database service'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from more detail.

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), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic inference.

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 ID', which hints at the 'service_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter (e.g., optional fields to include in the response). With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from the schema structure.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('database service'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, fetch details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_database_services' (plural vs singular) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_database_service_by_name' (ID vs name). This is adequate but lacks specificity.

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), when not to use it, or compare it to siblings like 'get_database_service_by_name' or 'list_database_services'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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