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. It mentions 'pagination and filtering' as behavioral traits, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose other important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant 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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, parameter details, or behavioral constraints needed for effective use. For a list tool with filtering options, more context is required 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'pagination and filtering' generally, which hints at parameters like limit/offset and team/fields, but doesn't explain what specific parameters exist, their purposes, or how to use them effectively. It 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('users from OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* tools in the sibling set (like list_teams, list_roles), which all follow the same pattern, so it misses the top score.

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' as capabilities, which implies when to use it for large datasets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_user or search_entities. 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.