MCP Server for OpenMetadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing bot' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified bot attributes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential action and resource.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters (one being a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what bot updates entail, what fields bot_data should include, or what the tool returns. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.

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 neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'bot_id' or 'bot_data' should contain, their formats, constraints, or examples. With 2 undocumented parameters and no compensation in the description, this creates significant ambiguity.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing bot in OpenMetadata'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'update_' siblings like update_chart or update_user, which follow the same pattern.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing bot ID), differentiate from create_bot or delete_bot, or specify appropriate contexts for bot updates versus other entity updates.

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