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 full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This 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 with a single sentence, 'Search entities using query text', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, as it under-specifies critical details.

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 (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'entities' are, how results are structured, or provide any operational context, making it inadequate for effective tool use by an AI agent.

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 tool has 8 parameters, but the description adds no meaning beyond the generic 'using query text', which only hints at the 'q' parameter. It fails to explain other parameters like 'index', 'service_name', or 'entity_type', leaving them undocumented and confusing.

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 'Search entities using query text' states the basic action but is vague. It mentions 'entities' without specifying what types of entities (e.g., data assets, users, policies) or what system this operates on. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_aggregate' or 'search_field_query', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific search tool.

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. With siblings like 'search_aggregate' and 'search_field_query', the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage without trial and error.

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