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 only states the action ('Test connection') without explaining what happens: whether it's a read-only check, if it modifies anything, what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure status), or any side effects like logging. This is inadequate for a tool with potential operational impact.

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, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 of testing a service connection (which could involve authentication, network checks, or configuration validation), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'connection_data' as an object. The description adds no information about what 'connection_data' should contain (e.g., credentials, endpoint URLs, or service type), leaving the parameter's meaning and structure 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 'Test connection to a service' clearly states the verb ('Test') and resource ('connection to a service'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'test' entails (e.g., ping, authentication check, or configuration validation) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'test_event_destination' or other tools that might involve service interactions.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing configured service data), exclusions (e.g., not for ongoing monitoring), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'test_event_destination', leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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