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 behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a list operation with 4 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 front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place - 'List classifications' establishes purpose, 'from OpenMetadata' specifies context, and 'with pagination and filtering' adds key behavioral context. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It mentions pagination and filtering but doesn't explain parameter usage, return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of the sibling toolset and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more complete guidance.

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 the 4 specific parameters (limit, offset, fields, include_deleted) mean or how they should be used. The description adds minimal value beyond what can be inferred from parameter names alone.

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 ('List') and resource ('classifications from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other list_* siblings by specifying the resource type (classifications). However, it doesn't differentiate from 'get_classification' or 'get_classification_by_name' which retrieve single classifications rather than listing multiple.

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 this tool (for bulk retrieval with controls), but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_classification' for single items or 'search_entities' for more complex queries. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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