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 only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error conditions (e.g., if topic doesn't exist), response format, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key constraint ('by fully qualified name'). Every word earns its place in this compact formulation.

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 2 parameters (one required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, expected outputs, error handling, or behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without guessing about parameter formats and return values.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by fully qualified name' which hints at the 'fqn' parameter purpose, but doesn't explain what a 'fully qualified name' means in this context or mention the optional 'fields' parameter at all. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names visible in the schema.

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 action ('Get details') and target resource ('a specific topic'), with the qualifier 'by fully qualified name' providing specificity. It distinguishes from generic 'get_topic' by specifying name-based lookup, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_*_by_name' siblings beyond the resource type.

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 like 'get_topic' (which might retrieve by ID) or 'list_topics'. The description implies usage when you have a fully qualified name, but doesn't state this explicitly or mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool relationships.

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