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 burden but only mentions 'pagination and filtering' without detailing behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a list operation with 4 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, authentication needs, or detailed parameter usage. The mention of 'pagination and filtering' is helpful but doesn't compensate for the overall lack of context needed to use this tool effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'pagination and filtering' which hints at 'limit' and 'offset' (pagination) and possibly 'fields' or 'include_deleted' (filtering), but doesn't explain what 'fields' means, what 'include_deleted' does, or how filtering actually works. It adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 ('glossaries from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a listing operation rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list_* tools in the sibling set.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_glossary' or 'search_entities'. The description mentions filtering but doesn't specify what kind of filtering is available or when to use it versus other search tools.

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