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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' but doesn't detail key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or how deleted items are handled (though include_deleted parameter hints at this). For a list tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List test cases') and adds necessary qualifiers ('with pagination and filtering'), making it appropriately sized and 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 (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or the meaning of key parameters like include_all_tests or entity_link. For a tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 only vaguely mentions 'filtering' without specifying which parameters are for filtering (e.g., test_suite_id, test_case_status) or their semantics. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 ('test cases'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* tools in the sibling set (like list_test_suites or list_test_case_results), which would require mentioning what makes test cases unique or the scope of listing.

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 context for usage, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_test_case for a single test case, or search_entities for broader searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving gaps in usage direction.

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