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. '创建发布流程' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is destructive (e.g., affects existing pipeline runs), requires specific permissions, has side effects (like triggering executions), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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—a single phrase in Chinese—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for what it conveys, though it's under-specified rather than truly concise. Every word earns its place, but there are too few words to be helpful.

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 mutation tool for pipeline runs with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'pipeline run' or 'release process' entails in this system, what the tool returns, or behavioral expectations. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema, which is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 fully documents all four parameters (ProjectId, Type, ObjectIds, Description) with details like enums for Type and constraints for ObjectIds. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting 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 '创建发布流程' (Create release process) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'CreatePipelineRun' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what resource is being created (pipeline run for what system?), what 'release process' means in this context, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'ExecPipelineRunStage' or 'GetPipelineRun'. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project or existing entities), when this is appropriate versus other creation tools (like 'CreateWorkflowInstances'), or any constraints beyond what's implied by parameters. The agent must infer usage solely from the input schema.

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