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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'List event subscriptions' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it supports pagination (though parameters suggest it might), what format the output takes, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the verb 'List'.

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 three words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework for this dimension, it's perfectly front-loaded with zero wasted words. Every word directly contributes to stating the basic purpose, even if inadequately.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what event subscriptions are in this context, how results are returned, what authentication is required, or how to interpret the parameters. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools and the complete lack of structured documentation, the description fails to provide even minimal contextual completeness.

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?

The description provides no information about any of the 4 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only shows parameter names and types without explaining their purpose. The description doesn't mention that users can limit results, paginate with offset, select specific fields, or include deleted items. This leaves all parameter semantics completely undocumented.

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 event subscriptions' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides the basic verb ('List') and resource ('event subscriptions'), but doesn't offer any specificity about what event subscriptions are, what scope is covered, or how this differs from similar tools like 'get_event_subscription' or 'list_events'. While it's not misleading, it's minimally informative.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools including 'get_event_subscription', 'get_event_subscription_by_name', 'create_event_subscription', 'update_event_subscription', and 'delete_event_subscription', there's no indication whether this tool is for browsing all subscriptions, filtered lists, or some other purpose. No context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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