MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't address permissions, pagination behavior (though schema hints at limit/offset), rate limits, or what the output looks like. It's a bare statement that leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the core function.

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 tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, output format, or behavioral traits like pagination or permissions. For a listing tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'list test case execution results'—it doesn't explain what 'fqn', 'start_ts', 'end_ts', etc., mean or how they affect the listing. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'List test case execution results' clearly states the action (list) and resource (test case execution results), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about scope or format, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_case_results_by_name' or 'list_test_cases', making it only minimally adequate.

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 are multiple sibling tools related to test cases (e.g., 'list_test_cases', 'get_test_case_results_by_name'), but the description offers no context for choosing among them, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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