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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get status' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'status' means, what format the response takes, whether authentication is required, or any error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for the agent.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple-sounding status check 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 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the parameters mean, or how this differs from related sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'subscription_name' and 'destination_id' represent, their expected formats, or their relationship. The description mentions 'event subscription destination' but doesn't clarify how these parameters map to that concept.

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 status') and target ('event subscription destination'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_event_subscription' or 'test_event_destination' that might also relate to event subscriptions.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_event_subscription' and 'test_event_destination' present, there's no indication of when this specific status-checking tool is appropriate versus those other event subscription tools.

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