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 behavior and scalability, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's safe to use. For a list operation with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic list tool and front-loads the key information (listing policies with features). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what policies are, how results are structured, error conditions, or provide enough detail for an agent to use the tool confidently. The conciseness comes at the cost of necessary context for a tool 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 parameters like 'limit', 'offset', 'fields', 'policy_type', 'include_deleted', and 'q' are undocumented in the schema. The description only generically mentions 'pagination and filtering', which loosely maps to some parameters but doesn't explain their purposes, formats, or interactions. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 policies with pagination and filtering' states the verb ('List') and resource ('policies'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list_* tools on the server (like list_bots, list_users, etc.), nor does it specify what kind of policies these are or their context. It's adequate but vague about scope.

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 prerequisites, compare it to get_policy or get_policy_by_name for individual policy retrieval, or indicate scenarios where filtering/pagination is needed. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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