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. It fails to do so: it does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation (implied write from 'create'), what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The MCP Resource note adds no behavioral context, leaving the agent with no safety or operational insights.

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 under-specified, not concise. The first line is a tautology, and the second line about the 'MCP Resource' is vague and does not earn its place by adding value. It lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on unhelpful content, failing to be efficiently informative.

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 (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'workflow instance' is, how creation works, return values, or error handling. The schema handles param documentation, but the description fails to provide the necessary contextual overview for a mutation tool with significant operational implications.

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 all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, not even summarizing key fields like 'Type' or 'ProjectId'. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema compensates for the description's lack of param details.

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 '创建工作流实例' (Create workflow instances) is a tautology that restates the tool name in Chinese, providing no additional specificity about what 'creating workflow instances' entails. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'CreateWorkflowDefinition' or 'ExecuteAdhocWorkflowInstance', leaving the purpose vague beyond the literal name.

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, context, or exclusions, and the note about an 'MCP Resource' is generic and unhelpful for decision-making. With many sibling tools like 'CreateWorkflowDefinition' or 'StartWorkflowInstances', the lack of comparative guidance 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.