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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires permissions, returns partial or full data, or handles errors. The description is minimal and 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 ('Get details'), making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, parameter usage, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely retrieves structured data.

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 'by ID' which hints at the 'tag_id' parameter but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter (e.g., for selecting specific attributes) or 'include_deleted' (e.g., for retrieving soft-deleted tags). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('specific tag by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tag_by_name' or 'list_tags', which would require mentioning it's specifically for ID-based retrieval versus name-based or listing operations.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_tag_by_name' for name-based retrieval or 'list_tags' for listing multiple tags, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a tag ID or when to use the optional parameters.

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