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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a surface level ('Get database service by name') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how errors are handled, what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Get database service by name')—just five words. While this avoids verbosity, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately sized, as it fails to provide necessary context. However, it is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and there's no wasted language, so it meets basic conciseness standards despite its inadequacy.

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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters), zero annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'database service' is in this system, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool in this context, the description fails to provide the minimal information needed for effective 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information about what 'service_name' or 'fields' represent. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid service name, what the fields parameter controls, or how these inputs affect the operation. With low schema coverage and no compensation from the description, this leaves parameters completely undocumented.

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 name' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get') and target resource ('database service'), it lacks specificity about what a 'database service' entails in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_database_service' (without 'by_name') or 'list_database_services'. The purpose is vague rather than clearly defined.

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. There are multiple sibling tools with similar naming patterns (e.g., 'get_database_service', 'list_database_services'), but the description doesn't explain when this specific 'by_name' variant is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or any usage constraints. This leaves the agent without contextual decision-making information.

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