MCP Server for OpenMetadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't mention whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a data system.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, 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?

Given the complexity of a schema retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, error handling, and output format, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 clarifies the 'schema_id' parameter, but it doesn't explain the optional 'fields' parameter or provide any details on parameter formats, constraints, or examples. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 resource ('a specific schema by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schema_by_name' or 'list_schemas', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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_schema_by_name' or 'list_schemas'. The description implies usage for retrieving schema details by ID but offers no context on prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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