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 for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic action implied by 'Get'.

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 phrase 'Get test case results by FQN', which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks necessary detail and structure—no sentences elaborate on usage, parameters, or behavior. It fails to front-load critical information effectively.

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's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data, leaving the agent without guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly, interpret inputs, or understand outputs. This is inadequate for a parameterized query tool.

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 'fqn', 'start_ts', and 'end_ts' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'FQN' stands for, its format, or the purpose of 'start_ts' and 'end_ts' (e.g., timestamps for filtering results). This leaves all three parameters ambiguous.

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 'Get test case results by FQN' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'test case results' but lacks detail on what 'results' entail (e.g., pass/fail status, execution logs) or what 'FQN' means (e.g., fully qualified name). Compared to siblings like 'list_test_case_results', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond the 'by name' aspect.

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. Sibling tools include 'get_test_case' (for test case metadata), 'get_test_case_by_name' (likely similar but for test cases, not results), and 'list_test_case_results' (for listing results without FQN filtering). The description fails to mention these distinctions, prerequisites, or any context for usage.

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