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. It mentions 'pagination and filtering', which hints at behavior, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, default sorting). For a list tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 pipelines from OpenMetadata') and adds key behavioral notes ('with pagination and filtering'). There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, output format, error conditions, or usage constraints. For a list operation with filtering options, more context is needed to use it 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 descriptions. The description mentions 'pagination and filtering' but doesn't explain which parameters correspond to pagination (limit, offset) versus filtering (fields, service, include_deleted), nor does it clarify what 'fields' or 'service' mean in this context. It 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 verb ('List') and resource ('pipelines from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pipeline' (singular retrieval) and 'create_pipeline' (creation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_tables' or 'list_users' beyond the resource name.

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 implies usage for retrieving multiple pipelines with pagination and filtering, suggesting it's for browsing rather than specific lookups. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_pipeline' (for single pipeline) or 'search_entities' (for complex queries), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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