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: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a list operation with 5 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key behavioral hints (pagination/filtering). Every word earns its place without being overly terse.

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 conditions, authentication needs, or detailed parameter usage. For a list tool with filtering capabilities, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent invocation.

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'/'include_deleted', but doesn't explain what 'fields' parameter does, how 'service' filtering works, or the meaning of 'include_deleted'. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('databases from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* siblings (like list_tables, list_schemas) beyond the resource type, missing explicit differentiation about what makes listing databases unique versus other listing operations.

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 some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_entities for more complex queries, get_database_by_name for single lookups, or other list_* tools). No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios are stated.

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