MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' which hints at some behavior, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure), whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool, though it could benefit from being more specific. The structure is clear but could be improved with more detailed information.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'topic' is in OpenMetadata context, what the return format looks like, how pagination works, or what filtering options are available. For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured documentation, the description should provide much more context to be complete.

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 none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'pagination and filtering' which loosely corresponds to 'limit', 'offset', and possibly 'service' or 'include_deleted', but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the listing. It doesn't mention the 'fields' parameter at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 states the action ('List') and resource ('topics from OpenMetadata'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_topic' or 'get_topic_by_name', which appear to retrieve individual topics rather than list multiple topics. The description is vague about what constitutes a 'topic' in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'pagination and filtering' but doesn't explain when these features should be used or how this tool compares to other listing tools like 'list_tables' or 'list_dashboards' in the same system. There's no mention of prerequisites, access requirements, or typical use cases.

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