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 some behavior, but fails to specify critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, how errors are handled, the format of returned data, or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's core functionality. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary words or redundant explanations. This efficiency makes it easy to parse quickly, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide enough context about parameters to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. For a listing tool with filtering capabilities, more detail on behavior and output is needed to be fully helpful to an 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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'pagination and filtering' which loosely relates to 'limit', 'offset', and possibly 'service' or 'include_deleted', but it doesn't explain what these parameters actually do, their expected formats, or how they interact. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'fields' controls or what 'service' refers to. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 ('ML models from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_ml_model' or 'create_ml_model' by focusing on listing multiple models rather than retrieving a single one or creating one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_metrics' or 'list_pipelines' 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_ml_models' over 'search_entities' or 'get_ml_model_by_name', nor does it specify prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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