Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DataWorks MCP Server

DataWorks MCP Server

by aliyun
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

AbolishDataServiceApi

Remove a data service API from a DataWorks project to manage API lifecycle and control access to data resources.

Instructions

下线数据服务API

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "AbolishDataServiceApi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ProjectIdNo工作空间的ID
ApiIdNo数据服务API的ID
TenantIdNo租户ID。您可登录[DataWorks控制台](https://workbench.data.aliyun.com/console)，进入数据开发（DataStudio）页面，单击右上方当前登录用户名称，选择菜单>用户信息，获取租户ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. '下线' implies a destructive/mutative action, but the description doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. It lacks behavioral details like confirmation prompts or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise with a single phrase. No wasted words, though this brevity contributes to underspecification in other dimensions. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Incomplete for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description doesn't explain what '下线' means operationally, what happens to the API, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity implied by three parameters and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (ProjectId, ApiId, TenantId). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '下线数据服务API' (deactivate data service API) states a verb+resource action but is vague about what '下线' specifically entails (decommission, disable, or archive). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like DeleteDataServiceApi, which suggests a similar but different operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DeleteDataServiceApi or UpdateDataServiceApi. The description provides no context about prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate scenarios for invoking this operation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools