DataWorks MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '删除数据源' only indicates a deletion action without specifying whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it cascades to dependent resources, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just three Chinese characters, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary context for a destructive operation. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't provide enough value to justify its existence as a helpful description.

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?

For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a data source is in this system, what the deletion entails, whether there are dependencies or cascading effects, what permissions are required, or what confirmation/response to expect. Given the complexity and risk of a deletion operation, this description fails to provide necessary 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 description has 0 parameters mentioned, but the input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('数据源ID，数据源的唯一标识符' - Data source ID, unique identifier of the data source). Since schema coverage is high and no parameters are described in the tool description, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameter.

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 '删除数据源' (Delete data source) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'DeleteDataSource' in Chinese. It provides the basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what constitutes a data source in this context or how this deletion differs from other deletion tools like DeleteDataServiceApi or DeleteDIJob. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings beyond the literal translation.

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. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (DeleteAlertRule, DeleteDataServiceApi, DeleteDIJob, etc.), but the description offers no context about prerequisites, when this specific deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion. It's completely lacking usage instructions.

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