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 full burden. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' which hints at behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic list operation and front-loads the core functionality.

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 what the tool returns, how pagination works, what filtering options exist, or any behavioral constraints. For a moderately complex list tool in this context, it should provide more operational 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. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' which loosely relates to 'limit', 'offset', and possibly 'service' or 'include_deleted', but doesn't explain what any parameter actually does, their relationships, or acceptable values. With 5 undocumented parameters, this is inadequate compensation.

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 ('dashboards from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard' or 'create_dashboard' by focusing on listing multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_charts' or 'list_tables' beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over search tools like 'search_entities', or how it relates to other list tools for different resources. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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