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 execution summary,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON structure, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Get execution summary of test suites.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, avoiding unnecessary words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, as it omits critical details that would enhance usability, but within the given text, every word serves a purpose without waste.

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 complexity (a read operation with a parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what an 'execution summary' contains, how to interpret the optional parameter, potential errors, or return values. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide an agent effectively, making it inadequate for full understanding.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('test_suite_id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about its purpose or format. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name—it doesn't explain what the ID is for (e.g., to filter summaries for a specific suite), whether it's optional (the schema shows it's nullable with default null), or what happens if omitted (e.g., returns summaries for all suites). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 execution summary of test suites' clearly states the action (get) and resource (execution summary of test suites), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what an 'execution summary' entails (e.g., statistics, status, recent runs) and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_test_suite' or 'list_test_suites', which might provide related information. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name, but remains somewhat vague.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a test suite ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_test_suite' (which might fetch details) or 'list_test_suites' (which might list all suites). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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