MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'update' without detailing permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or mutation effects. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies data, as it 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 is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'data_product_data' entails, the update process, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'data_product_id' and 'data_product_data' lack documentation in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as what 'data_product_data' should contain or format requirements, failing to compensate for the schema's deficiencies.

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 'Update an existing data product' restates the tool name 'update_data_product' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'data product' but lacks detail on what aspects can be updated or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_data_product' or other 'update_' siblings.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing data product ID), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_data_product' for initial creation or 'delete_data_product' for removal, leaving usage context unclear.

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