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. While 'List' suggests a read operation, it doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns partial data, or handles errors. The mention of 'pagination and filtering' adds minimal behavioral context but leaves critical operational details 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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every element ('List test suites', 'pagination', 'filtering') serves a clear informational purpose.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a test suite, what fields might be available, what filtering options exist beyond the implied pagination, or what the return format looks like.

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 6 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' which hints at parameters like 'limit' and 'offset', but doesn't explain what 'fields', 'test_suite_type', 'include_empty_test_suites', or 'include_deleted' mean or how they affect results.

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 suites'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_suite' or 'get_test_suite_by_name', which appear to retrieve individual test suites rather than list them 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 some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_test_suite' or 'search_entities'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations.

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