MCP Server for OpenMetadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the glossary doesn't exist), or response format. For a 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details'), making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.

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), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how errors are handled, or provide usage context. For a tool that likely returns structured data (glossary details), more information is needed to guide the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'name' and 'fields' are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'by name', which hints at the 'name' parameter's purpose, but provides no information about 'fields' (e.g., what fields can be requested, default behavior, or format). This partial compensation is insufficient given the low schema coverage, failing to fully clarify parameter meanings.

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 clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific glossary by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_glossary' or 'list_glossaries', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 like 'get_glossary' (which might use an ID) or 'list_glossaries' (which returns multiple items). It lacks any mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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