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 mentions 'pagination and filtering' which gives some context about how results are returned, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the core functionality. There's no wasted language, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the complexity of the tool.

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 tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It mentions pagination and filtering but doesn't explain the specific filtering capabilities (service filtering, field selection, deleted items) or what the response contains. For a data retrieval tool with multiple options, more guidance is needed.

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 description must compensate but fails to do so. While it mentions 'pagination and filtering' generally, it doesn't explain what any of the 5 parameters actually do (limit, offset, fields, service, include_deleted). The description provides no semantic information about parameter meanings, valid values, or how they interact.

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 ('charts from OpenMetadata'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_chart' or 'create_chart' by indicating it returns multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_dashboards' 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?

The description mentions 'pagination and filtering' which implies when to use it (for retrieving multiple charts with control over results), but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like 'search_entities' or 'get_chart_by_name'. There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or specific use cases.

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