MCP Server for OpenMetadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails entirely. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., paginated), or any rate limits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 extremely concise with a single three-word phrase, 'List dashboard services', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient.

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 a listing tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'dashboard services' are, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 (limit, offset, fields, include_deleted) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters, their purposes, or how they affect the listing, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'List dashboard services' restates the tool name without adding specificity or distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_database_services' or 'list_messaging_services'. It's a tautology that doesn't clarify what 'dashboard services' are or what 'list' entails beyond the obvious.

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 like 'get_dashboard_service' or other list tools. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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