MCP Server for OpenMetadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination and filtering', which hints at handling large datasets, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied by 'list' but not explicit), what the output format is (no output schema), error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 purpose ('List metrics from OpenMetadata') and adds key features ('with pagination and filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it appropriately concise for a basic listing tool.

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 output format, error handling, authentication needs, and parameter usage. While it mentions pagination and filtering, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without trial and error, especially with 0% schema coverage.

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 for all 5 parameters. It only vaguely references 'pagination and filtering' without explaining which parameters correspond to pagination (limit, offset) versus filtering (service, include_deleted, fields). No details are provided on parameter formats, constraints, or interactions, leaving parameters largely 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('metrics from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_metric' or 'get_metric_by_name' by indicating it lists multiple metrics rather than fetching a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_tables' or 'list_users' beyond the resource type.

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 mentions 'pagination and filtering', which implies usage for browsing large datasets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_entities' or 'get_metric_by_name'. There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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