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' which hints at output behavior, but fails to describe critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or the structure of returned data. The description leaves the agent guessing about key behavioral traits.

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 contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise for a basic listing operation.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, output format, or when to use versus alternatives. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'limit', 'offset', 'fields', 'database', or 'include_deleted' mean or how they should be used. The mention of 'pagination and filtering' only vaguely relates to some parameters without explaining their specific roles or formats.

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 ('database schemas from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_schema' (singular retrieval) by indicating a listing operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_databases' or 'list_tables'.

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 'pagination and filtering' which implies usage for browsing large datasets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_entities' or 'get_schema_by_name'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are given.

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