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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description does not specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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 2 parameters, nested object, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an AI agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional 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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'test suite' but does not explain the parameters 'test_suite_id' (e.g., format, source) or 'test_suite_data' (e.g., what fields can be updated, structure). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 test suite' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('test suite'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of a test suite can be updated (e.g., name, configuration, tests) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling 'update_*' tools like 'update_test_case' or 'update_domain', which have similar generic descriptions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing test suite ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new test suites), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_basic_test_suite' for creation or 'delete_test_suite' for deletion, 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.