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 doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling for invalid IDs, or response format. The phrase 'Get' implies retrieval but lacks details on safety, rate limits, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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—'Get event subscription by ID' is front-loaded and to the point. Every word contributes to the core purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 two parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'event subscription' is in this context, how to use the parameters, or what the tool returns. For a retrieval tool with undocumented inputs and outputs, this is inadequate.

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', hinting at the 'subscription_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter or its purpose. It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 event subscription by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('event subscription'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails—whether it retrieves metadata, details, or status. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_event_subscription_by_name' by specifying 'by ID', but doesn't clarify differences from other retrieval tools like 'list_event_subscriptions' or 'get_subscription_status'.

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 like needing a valid subscription ID, nor does it compare with siblings such as 'get_event_subscription_by_name' (for name-based lookup) or 'list_event_subscriptions' (for bulk retrieval). The description lacks context for selection.

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