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 mentions 'pagination and filtering', which hints at handling large datasets, but fails to describe key traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 front-loads the core action ('List bots') and key features ('pagination and filtering'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, return values, and differentiation from siblings, failing to provide a complete context for effective tool invocation.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'pagination and filtering', which loosely relates to 'limit', 'offset', and possibly 'fields' or 'include_deleted', but does not explain what each parameter does, their expected values, or how they interact. This adds minimal value beyond 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 verb ('List') and resource ('bots from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bot' or 'get_bot_by_name', which might retrieve single bots, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'pagination and filtering', implying usage for large datasets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_bot' or 'search_entities'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving gaps in usage direction.

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