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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place in conveying the minimal viable information.

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 this is a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured information about behavior, parameters, or results. For a tool that modifies data, more context about what can be updated and what to expect is needed.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'classification' but doesn't explain what 'classification_id' or 'classification_data' represent, their formats, constraints, or examples. It adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what's inferred from the parameter names themselves.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing classification in OpenMetadata'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what specifically gets updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_tag' or 'update_team' beyond the resource type. It lacks specificity about the nature of classification updates.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing classification), compare to 'create_classification' or 'delete_classification', or specify contexts where updates are appropriate. The description offers no usage context beyond the basic action.

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