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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, what format results take, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide essential behavioral context for a search tool with 4 parameters.

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, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. It's front-loaded with the core action but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what entities can be searched, what fields are available, what the search returns, or how results are structured. The agent would have insufficient information to use this tool effectively.

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 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'field and value' which maps to the required parameters 'field_name' and 'field_value', but doesn't explain what fields are available, what values are valid, or provide any context about the optional 'index' and 'size' parameters. This leaves 2 parameters completely undocumented.

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 tool's purpose as searching entities with specific field and value, which is clear but vague. It uses the verb 'search' with 'entities' as the resource, but doesn't specify what types of entities are searchable or what context they exist in. Compared to sibling tools like 'search_entities' and 'search_aggregate', it doesn't clearly differentiate itself beyond mentioning 'field and value' 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_entities' or 'search_aggregate' that appear to offer similar search functionality. There's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or limitations that would help an agent choose between available search options.

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