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 mentions 'pagination and filtering' without detailing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'containers' specifically refers to in OpenMetadata. It lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.

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 purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from features (pagination/filtering), but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or the scope of 'containers', making it inadequate for a tool with this complexity and lack of structured support.

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 only vaguely references 'filtering' without explaining parameters like 'service', 'fields', or 'include_deleted'. It fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic property names, leaving 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('containers from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools (like list_tables, list_users) beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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 usage for large datasets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_container for single items or search_entities for complex queries). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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