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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' which hints at read-only, list-like behavior, but fails to clarify critical aspects: whether it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are required, how results are structured (e.g., JSON array), or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List glossary terms') and adds essential modifiers ('with pagination and filtering'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (safety, permissions), parameter usage, and output format. While conciseness is good, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without guesswork, especially for a list operation with multiple filtering options.

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 details. The description only vaguely mentions 'pagination and filtering' without explaining which parameters correspond to pagination (limit, offset) versus filtering (fields, glossary, include_deleted), or what values they accept. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('glossary terms'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_glossary_term' (singular retrieval) and 'list_glossaries' (lists glossaries, not terms). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_entities' which might also find glossary terms, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'get_glossary_term' (for a single term) or 'search_entities' (for broader searches), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a glossary context. This leaves the agent with minimal usage context.

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