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 only states it 'gets details' without clarifying what details are returned, whether it's a read-only operation, error behavior (e.g., if policy not found), or authentication requirements. It lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, parameter usage, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters 'name', 'fields', and 'include_deleted' are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'by name' which hints at the 'name' parameter but doesn't explain 'fields' (what fields can be requested) or 'include_deleted' (what deleted policies are). 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 details') and resource ('a specific policy by name'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from generic 'get_policy' by specifying the lookup method (by name), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'by_name' tools for different resources.

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_policy' (which might retrieve by ID) or 'list_policies'. The description implies it's for retrieving a single policy when you know its name, but offers no explicit usage context or prerequisites.

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