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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'creates' but doesn't clarify if this is a write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a complex creation tool with 19 parameters, this is a critical gap.

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 phrase ('创建数据服务API') which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. For a tool with 19 parameters and no annotations, this brevity fails to provide necessary context. It's not structured or front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's complexity (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output, error handling, or usage context. Sibling tools like 'PublishDataServiceApi' and 'UpdateDataServiceApi' suggest a workflow that isn't addressed, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, no clarification of dependencies between parameters like 'ApiMode' and 'RequestMethod'). The baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 '创建数据服务API' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name in Chinese ('Create Data Service API'). It doesn't specify what 'creating' entails, what a 'Data Service API' is, or how this differs from similar tools like 'PublishDataServiceApi' or 'UpdateDataServiceApi'. The purpose is stated but not clarified beyond the obvious.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project or group), when to choose this over 'PublishDataServiceApi' or 'UpdateDataServiceApi', or any constraints on usage. With 19 parameters including complex ones like 'ApiMode', this lack of context is problematic.

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