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. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' but doesn't explain how these work or their limitations.

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 at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'List roles' establishes the action, 'with pagination and filtering' adds key functional context. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, authentication needs, or provide adequate parameter guidance. For a listing tool with filtering capabilities, more context about behavior and output is needed.

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?

The schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' which hints at some parameters (likely limit/offset for pagination and q/fields for filtering), but doesn't explain what 'fields' or 'q' represent, what 'include_deleted' does, or provide any parameter-specific guidance. This is inadequate for 5 undocumented parameters.

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 ('roles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions 'pagination and filtering' which adds specificity about functionality. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* siblings in the server (like list_users, list_teams, etc.), which would require a 5.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other listing tools like list_users or list_teams. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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