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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description provides no information about permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at just four words, with no wasted language. However, this brevity comes at the cost of meaningful content - it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, provides no parameter guidance, and offers no behavioral 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%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'service_id' refers to, what structure 'service_data' should have, or what fields can be updated. This leaves both parameters 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 'Update a database service' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the verb 'update' and resource 'database service' but doesn't explain what aspects can be updated or how this differs from similar tools like 'update_database' or 'create_database_service'.

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, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With many sibling tools including other update operations, this lack of differentiation is problematic.

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