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 specifying what details are returned, whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. It mentions 'specific role by name' which implies lookup behavior but lacks depth about the operation's characteristics.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how parameters interact, or the tool's behavior beyond the basic lookup concept. The context demands more comprehensive documentation.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by name' which corresponds to the 'name' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter (for selecting specific attributes) or 'include_deleted' parameter (for showing soft-deleted roles). It adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from the parameter names.

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 role by name'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from generic 'get_role' by specifying the lookup method, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'by_name' siblings beyond the resource type.

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_role' (likely by ID) or 'list_roles'. The description implies it's for retrieving a single role by name, but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with sibling tools.

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