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. While it mentions 'pagination and filtering' which hints at behavior, it doesn't disclose important operational details: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, what happens with deleted domains (though 'include_deleted' parameter exists), or the format/structure of returned data. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 5 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place: 'List' (action), 'domains' (resource), 'with pagination and filtering' (key capabilities). There's zero waste or redundancy in this minimal description.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'domain' represents in this context, what fields might be available, how results are structured, or any prerequisites. For a list operation that likely returns multiple records with filtering options, more context is needed for effective use.

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 for 5 parameters, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' which vaguely relates to 'limit', 'offset', and 'q' parameters, but doesn't explain what 'fields' controls, what 'include_deleted' does, or what 'q' filters on. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names alone.

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 ('domains'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions 'pagination and filtering' which adds useful context about functionality. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_domain' or 'get_domain_by_name' which appear to be single-domain retrieval tools.

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_domain', 'get_domain_by_name', and 'search_entities' available, there's no indication of when list_domains is appropriate versus those other retrieval methods. The mention of 'pagination and filtering' implies bulk retrieval but doesn't establish clear boundaries.

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