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 'with pagination' which is useful context, but doesn't describe what a data product is, what fields are returned, whether this requires authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read operation with 6 parameters, 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 appropriately concise at 5 words, front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too concise given the tool's complexity - a single phrase leaves out necessary context for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data products are, what information is returned, how pagination works, or the purpose of the various filtering parameters. For a list operation with multiple filtering options, this minimal description is inadequate.

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. The description mentions 'pagination' which hints at limit/offset parameters, but doesn't explain the 6 parameters (limit, offset, fields, domain, include_deleted, q) or their semantics. No parameter details are provided beyond the vague pagination reference.

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 data products with pagination' states the basic action (list) and resource (data products), but is vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify whether this lists all data products or has implicit filters, and doesn't distinguish from other list_* tools or search tools in the sibling set.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include multiple list_* tools and search tools, but the description provides no context about when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus using search_entities or other list tools. 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.