test_service_connection
Validate a service connection by submitting connection data to confirm proper integration with OpenMetadata.
Instructions
Test connection to a service
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection_data | Yes |
Validate a service connection by submitting connection data to confirm proper integration with OpenMetadata.
Test connection to a service
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection_data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention success/failure outcomes, side effects, or required permissions. The tool's behavior is opaque.
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 very concise (five words), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While front-loaded, it fails to include essential information, making it insufficient.
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 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining input and output expectations. It does not, leaving the tool poorly defined.
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 sole parameter 'connection_data' is an object with no description in the schema. The description adds no context about its structure or expected fields, offering no value beyond the 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 (test connection) and the target (service), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like test_event_destination, so it's not perfect.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yangkyeongmo/mcp-server-openmetadata'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server