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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding operational behavior.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits (e.g., side effects), error handling, and response format, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool correctly in context.

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 description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'chart_id' refers to (e.g., UUID, name) or the structure/constraints of 'chart_data' (e.g., required fields, format). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate for guiding proper usage.

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 chart in OpenMetadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from 'create_chart' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_dashboard' or 'update_table' beyond the chart focus.

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. While 'existing chart' implies it's for modifications rather than creation, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing chart_id), comparison to sibling tools like 'get_chart' for verification, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if chart_id doesn't exist).

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