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 burden but offers no behavioral information. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how conflicts are handled, what happens to existing tag data, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely 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 maximally concise - a single four-word sentence that gets straight to the point. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for such a basic statement of 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 (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 can be updated, how to format inputs, what permissions are needed, or what to expect as output. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about what 'tag_id' or 'tag_data' represent, what format they should be in, what properties 'tag_data' object should contain, or examples of valid values. Two undocumented parameters with no compensation in the description.

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 tag' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (tag), but it's vague about what aspects of a tag can be updated. It distinguishes from 'create_tag' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_tag_category' beyond the resource name.

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 (e.g., needing tag_id), compare with 'create_tag' for new tags, or indicate when other update tools might be more appropriate. It simply states the action without context.

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