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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List database services' gives no information about what the operation returns (format, structure), whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a list operation with 4 parameters, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 at just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration. The description is front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks supporting details.

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 (list operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, what 'database services' means in this context, or how this differs from similar tools. For a tool with this level of potential complexity, the description provides almost no useful context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema), the description provides no information about any parameters. The schema shows parameters for limit, offset, fields, and include_deleted, but the description doesn't mention any of these or explain their purpose. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 database services' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides the verb 'list' and resource 'database services', but doesn't specify what kind of listing this is (paginated, filtered, etc.) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_database_service' or 'get_database_service_by_name'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks differentiation from alternatives.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_database_service' (singular retrieval), 'get_database_service_by_name' (name-based lookup), and 'search_entities' (general search), there's no indication of when this list operation is appropriate versus those alternatives. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations is provided.

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