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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what fields can be updated in 'topic_data', or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral expectations (e.g., side effects), and output format, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 adds no information about 'topic_id' (e.g., format or source) or 'topic_data' (e.g., structure or allowed fields). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing topic in OpenMetadata'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from 'create_topic' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_table' or 'update_user' beyond the resource type.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'existing topic' implies it's for modifications rather than creation, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the topic_id), exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like 'delete_topic' or 'get_topic' for related operations.

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