DataWorks MCP Server

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. '批量更新任务' implies a batch mutation operation, but it does not specify whether this is idempotent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on partial failures. The mention of 'MCP Resource' for examples hints at additional context but does not itself disclose behavioral traits.

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 brief ('批量更新任务') but under-specified, not truly concise. The additional sentence about 'MCP Resource' adds meta-instruction without enhancing tool understanding, making it somewhat inefficient. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 complexity (batch update tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'batch' entails (e.g., atomicity, error handling), the expected return values, or how it differs from single-update tools. The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to provide necessary operational 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with detailed documentation for all parameters (e.g., 'Tasks' array with nested objects like 'EnvType', 'Trigger', 'RuntimeResource'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '批量更新任务' (Batch update tasks) is a tautology that restates the tool name in Chinese without adding specificity. It mentions a 'MCP Resource' for examples, but this is meta-instruction rather than clarifying the tool's purpose. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'UpdateTask' or 'UpdateTaskInstances', leaving the scope and differentiation unclear.

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, context, or exclusions, and the reference to 'MCP Resource' for examples is not actionable usage advice. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'UpdateTask', 'UpdateTaskInstances'), this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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