MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from additional context to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior, inputs, or outputs 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 are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'a specific entity' but doesn't explain what entity_id, entity_type, upstream_depth, or downstream_depth mean or how they affect lineage retrieval. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 lineage information for a specific entity' clearly states the action (get) and resource (lineage information), but it's somewhat vague about what lineage information entails. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_lineage_by_name' or 'add_lineage', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.

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 like 'get_lineage_by_name' or other lineage-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, offering minimal help for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.

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