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 of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what error conditions might occur, what format the response takes, or any rate limits. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to disclose behavioral traits.

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 at just four words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, every word essentially repeats the tool name without adding value, making this an example of false conciseness that fails to serve its purpose.

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 a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool returns, how to use its parameters, when to choose it over alternatives, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and two parameters (one required 'name' and one optional 'fields'), the description provides zero information about parameter meaning or usage. It doesn't explain what format the 'name' parameter should take, what the 'fields' parameter controls, or provide any examples of valid inputs. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 name' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful clarification. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'event subscription', but fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_event_subscription' or 'list_event_subscriptions', leaving the agent uncertain about when to choose this specific 'by_name' variant.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools including 'get_event_subscription' and 'list_event_subscriptions', the agent receives no indication whether this tool is for retrieving a single subscription by exact name match, whether it's more efficient than other retrieval methods, or what prerequisites might be required.

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