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 offers minimal behavioral information. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, how errors are handled, or what format/details are returned. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without operational context.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how to use the optional parameters, or provide any context about test suites in this system. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional information.

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 and 3 parameters (name, fields, include_deleted), the description provides no information about any parameters. It mentions 'by name' which hints at the 'name' parameter but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter (what fields can be requested) or 'include_deleted' (what deleted means in this context). The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 test suite by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_suite' (without 'by_name') or explain what distinguishes this from other retrieval tools 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_test_suite' or 'list_test_suites'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, access requirements, or typical use cases for retrieving test suite details by name rather than by ID.

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