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. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the details are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens if the pipeline ID doesn't exist. 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 that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned, how to interpret the optional 'fields' parameter, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with two parameters and no structured documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has documentation in the schema. The description mentions retrieving 'by ID' which explains the pipeline_id parameter, but provides no information about the optional 'fields' parameter. With two parameters and no schema documentation, the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('details of a specific pipeline'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_pipeline_by_name' which appears to serve a similar purpose but uses a different identifier. The description is specific but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_pipeline_by_name' or 'list_pipelines'. It mentions retrieving by ID but doesn't explain when ID-based lookup is preferred over name-based lookup or when to use this versus listing tools. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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