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 but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are formatted, or potential side effects like rate limits. The vague phrase 'lineage information' offers no operational clarity.

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. However, it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification rather than true conciseness, as it sacrifices necessary detail for 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 complex lineage functionality, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what lineage information includes, how parameters affect results, or basic usage context, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'by entity name', which loosely maps to 'entity_fqn', but ignores 'entity_type', 'upstream_depth', and 'downstream_depth'. With 4 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, this leaves critical gaps.

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 by entity name' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('get') and resource ('lineage information') but lacks detail on what lineage information entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_lineage' or 'get_usage_by_entity'.

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. With siblings like 'get_lineage' (unspecified differences), 'get_usage_by_entity', and 'get_entity_usage_summary', the description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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