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 'aggregated search results with facets', which hints at a read-only operation with faceted filtering, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'aggregated' entails (e.g., statistical summaries). For a search tool with 5 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, though it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or use cases. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification.

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, 1 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or expected results, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. For a search tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed.

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 (q, index, from_, size, facets) have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'facets' indirectly and doesn't explain any parameters, such as what 'q' represents (query string), what 'index' refers to, or how 'from_' and 'size' control pagination. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get aggregated search results with facets' states the basic action (get/search) and key feature (aggregated results with facets), but it's vague about what is being searched and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_entities' or 'search_field_query'. It provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about the resource domain.

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 like 'search_entities' or 'search_field_query'. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection among the search-related siblings.

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