MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and filtering capabilities, which is useful, but fails to describe important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a list tool with 5 parameters, 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. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It mentions pagination and filtering but doesn't explain parameter meanings, return format, or behavioral constraints. For a list operation with multiple filtering options, more context is needed for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for completely undocumented parameters. While it mentions 'pagination and filtering' generally, it doesn't explain what specific parameters exist (limit, offset, fields, service, include_deleted) or their meanings. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from 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 reports') and source ('from OpenMetadata'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* tools (like list_dashboards, list_tables) beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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 'with pagination and filtering' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report (for single reports) or search_entities (for broader searches). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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