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' as features, which adds some context beyond the input schema, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (especially since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 tables from OpenMetadata') and adds key features ('with pagination and filtering'). There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, return values, and differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to reliably invoke this tool without guessing at unspecified aspects.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' which loosely relates to 'limit', 'offset', and 'database'/'include_deleted', but it doesn't clarify the meaning of 'fields' or provide any details on parameter usage, formats, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property 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 tables') and resource ('from OpenMetadata'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* tools in the sibling set (like list_dashboards, list_databases, etc.), missing explicit differentiation that would warrant a score of 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 mentions 'pagination and filtering' which implies some usage context, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_table_by_name for specific tables or search_entities for broader searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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