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. It only states it 'gets details' without specifying what kind of details, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or how deleted items are handled (despite an 'include_deleted' parameter). The description doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or response format.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While it may be too brief for completeness, it's perfectly efficient in terms of word economy.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the optional parameters, doesn't describe what 'details' are returned, doesn't mention behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools. The description fails to provide the context needed for effective tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description only mentions 'by ID', which corresponds to the 'test_suite_id' parameter. It doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter (for selecting specific fields) or 'include_deleted' parameter (for showing deleted items). With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond the obvious ID requirement.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific test suite by ID'. It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('test suite'), and indicates it's for a specific item identified by ID. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_test_suite_by_name' or 'list_test_suites', which would require more explicit differentiation.

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 minimal guidance - it only indicates this is for getting details by ID. It doesn't explain when to use this versus 'get_test_suite_by_name' (which appears in siblings), when to use versus 'list_test_suites', or any prerequisites for usage. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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