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 helpful, but fails to describe important behavioral aspects like what authentication is required, whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of returned data. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 - 'List teams' establishes the action, 'from OpenMetadata' specifies the source, and 'with pagination and filtering' highlights key capabilities without 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return format, authentication requirements, or error handling. While concise, it leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning all 5 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only generically mentions 'filtering' without explaining what specific filters are available (like parent_team or include_deleted) or how pagination parameters (limit/offset) work. It adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('teams from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team' or 'get_team_by_name' which retrieve individual teams rather than listing multiple teams with filtering.

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 when to use this tool for bulk retrieval, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_team' (for single team) 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.