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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Update an existing role', which implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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 three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, but it under-specifies rather than being 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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, provide parameter details, disclose behavioral traits, or guide usage. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 the schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (role_id and role_data). The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what role_id refers to, what role_data should contain, or the structure of the role_data object. With no parameter details in either the schema or description, the agent lacks essential guidance.

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 role' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'update_role'. It provides no additional specificity about what aspects of a role are updated, what 'role' means in this context, or how this differs from similar tools like 'create_role' or 'get_role'. While it identifies the verb ('update') and resource ('role'), it lacks the specificity needed for clear differentiation from 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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing role ID), comparison to 'create_role' for new roles or 'get_role' for reading, or any context about appropriate scenarios for role updates. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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