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, error conditions, or authentication needs. 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 that front-loads the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 2 parameters (one required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, parameter usage, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use 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 the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'fully qualified name' which hints at the 'fqn' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter at all. It adds minimal semantic value beyond 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 schema'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from generic 'get_schema' by specifying 'by fully qualified name', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_*_by_name' siblings in the list.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_schema' (which might list schemas) or other 'get_*_by_name' tools. The description implies usage when you have a fully qualified name, but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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