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. The description only states it 'gets' analytics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place, making it structurally sound.

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 (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the analytics returned, parameter usage, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by their titles (e.g., 'entity_type', 'start_ts'), failing to explain what entities are supported, what 'ts' stands for, or how date ranges work. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 usage analytics for a specific entity' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('usage analytics'), but it's vague about what 'usage analytics' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_entity_usage_summary' or other 'get_' tools. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or content of the analytics.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'get_entity_usage_summary' present, it fails to differentiate usage scenarios. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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