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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the tool returns. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about behavioral traits.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains no redundant information and is perfectly front-loaded. Every word serves the minimal purpose of stating the tool's basic function.

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 (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no usage guidelines. This leaves the agent unable to properly invoke the tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description provides zero information about what 'domain_id' or 'domain_data' represent, their expected formats, or what properties 'domain_data' should contain. With 2 undocumented parameters and no compensation from the description, this is severely inadequate.

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 domain' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'update_domain' without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what aspects of a domain can be updated or what 'update' entails operationally. While it identifies the resource ('domain'), it lacks the verb specificity needed for clear understanding.

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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_domain' and 'delete_domain' available, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions between creation and updating. The agent receives zero usage direction.

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