DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. '终止' (terminate/abolish) implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to dependent resources, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 Chinese phrase ('终止发布流程') that directly conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'terminate' means operationally, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of pipeline operations and lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about this irreversible-seeming action.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (ProjectId and Id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 '终止发布流程' (terminate release pipeline) clearly states the action (terminate) and resource (release pipeline). It distinguishes from siblings like 'StopWorkflowInstances' or 'DeleteWorkflowDefinition' by focusing specifically on pipeline runs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ExecPipelineRunStage' or 'GetPipelineRun', which are related but not direct alternatives.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or when this operation is appropriate compared to other pipeline-related tools like 'StopWorkflowInstances' or 'DeleteWorkflowDefinition'. The user 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.