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 gives some behavioral context (supports limit/offset and filtering parameters), but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned events. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('List events') and adds key features ('with pagination and filtering'). There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from capabilities.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'events' are in this context, the return format, error handling, or authentication needs. While it hints at pagination and filtering, it leaves too many gaps for effective tool selection and invocation by an AI agent.

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 maps to parameters like limit, offset, and filtering fields (entity_type, event_type, etc.), but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats (e.g., timestamp as integer), or how they interact. With 7 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond 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 events with pagination and filtering' states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('events'), and mentions two key capabilities (pagination, filtering). However, it doesn't specify what type of events (e.g., system events, user events, audit logs) or distinguish this tool from other list_* tools in the sibling set like list_users or list_tables. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 many sibling tools (e.g., list_users, search_entities, get_event_subscription), there's no indication of whether this is for general event listing, specific event types, or how it relates to other tools. The mention of 'pagination and filtering' implies usage for large datasets but doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions.

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