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 states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what 'details' actually includes. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how the 'fields' parameter works, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at the 'topic_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter at all. With 2 parameters and no schema documentation, the description adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from the parameter names.

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 ('a specific topic by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_topic_by_name' which serves a similar purpose but uses a different identifier. The description is specific about the ID requirement but lacks sibling 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_topic_by_name' or 'list_topics'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or any context about when this specific retrieval method is appropriate versus other topic-related tools in the extensive sibling list.

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