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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled (e.g., if the metric doesn't exist), or the format of returned details. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get details', 'specific metric', 'fully qualified name') contributes directly to understanding, making it appropriately sized for its limited content.

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 insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), and output format. For a tool that retrieves entity details, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 neither parameter (fqn, fields) is documented in the schema. The description mentions 'fully qualified name' which hints at the 'fqn' parameter but doesn't explain its format or provide examples. It ignores the 'fields' parameter entirely, leaving its purpose and usage unclear.

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 target ('a specific metric by fully qualified name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_metric' (likely listing metrics) by specifying retrieval by name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get_*_by_name' tools for different entity types.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the metric's FQN), contrast it with 'get_metric' for listing metrics, or explain when to use it over other retrieval tools like 'search_entities'. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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