DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only states '创建数据源' (Create data source), which implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, side effects, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success (e.g., whether a new data source ID is returned). This is critically insufficient for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—just three Chinese characters—but this brevity results in severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While it has no wasted words, it fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient for its purpose. A score of 3 reflects that it is short but not helpfully structured.

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 (a creation tool with 6 parameters, 4 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does beyond the name, when to use it, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool in a rich sibling ecosystem, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to operate correctly.

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, thoroughly documenting all 6 parameters (e.g., Name constraints, Type references, ConnectionProperties details). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '创建数据源' (Create data source) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'CreateDataSource' in Chinese. It provides no specific information about what 'data source' means in this context, what resources are involved, or how this creation differs from similar operations like 'CloneDataSource' or 'UpdateDataSource' among the sibling tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a ProjectId), scenarios where creation is appropriate, or when to choose other tools like 'CloneDataSource' or 'UpdateDataSource'. Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for selection.

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