MCP Server for OpenMetadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'validate' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what happens on failure (e.g., errors, warnings), or any side effects (e.g., logging). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely checks policies without modifying them.

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's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a single nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details like validation criteria, output format, error handling, and how it fits with sibling tools, making it inadequate for reliable use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no details about 'policy_data' (e.g., format, required fields, examples). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear beyond its name.

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 'Validate policy rules and conditions' clearly states the action (validate) and target (policy rules and conditions), providing a basic purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what validation entails (e.g., syntax, compliance, correctness) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_policy' or 'update_policy' in terms of scope or intent.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after creating a policy), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings such as 'create_policy' or 'update_policy'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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