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 states 'List messaging services', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single sentence 'List messaging services'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but as per the dimension's focus, it scores high for brevity and structure.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, return values, or how it fits among siblings. For a list operation with pagination and filtering options, more context is essential for effective agent 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (limit, offset, fields, include_deleted) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain their purposes, formats, or interactions. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter usage, which is inadequate for a tool with multiple inputs.

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 messaging services' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides the verb 'list' and resource 'messaging services', but lacks specificity about what 'list' entails (e.g., paginated results, filtering options) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_messaging_service' or 'create_messaging_service'. This is minimal but not entirely misleading.

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 sibling tools like 'get_messaging_service' (for single service details) or 'create_messaging_service' (for creation), nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. This absence leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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