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 mentions 'Get' which suggests a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of events with details). For a tool with 3 parameters and no 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get failed events for a subscription'—making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, usage context, and parameter meanings, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions or external knowledge.

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 descriptions for parameters. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying 'subscription_id' is needed. It doesn't explain what 'limit' and 'offset' do in context (e.g., pagination), their units, or valid ranges, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 failed events for a subscription' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('failed events'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_events' or 'get_event_subscription'. It specifies 'for a subscription' which provides some context but lacks detail about what constitutes a 'failed event' or the retrieval mechanism.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_events' or 'get_event_subscription'. The description implies usage for retrieving failed events specifically, but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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