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. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, output, and usage context, making it inadequate for the agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional information.

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 'by ID', which hints at the 'service_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter or provide any details on format, constraints, or usage. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('messaging service by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messaging_service_by_name' or 'list_messaging_services', which would require ID-based vs. name-based or list vs. single retrieval distinctions.

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. The description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a service ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_messaging_services' or 'get_messaging_service_by_name', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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