DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '执行' (execute) implies a mutation action, but the description does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects occur (e.g., state changes, resource consumption), or any error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('执行发布流程的指定阶段') that directly states the tool's action. It is front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 of executing a pipeline stage (a mutation operation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like side effects, permissions, or response format, which are critical for an agent to use this tool correctly. The description should provide more context to compensate for missing structured data.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (ProjectId, Id, Code) with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 '执行发布流程的指定阶段' (Execute a specified stage of a release pipeline) states a clear verb ('执行' - execute) and resource ('发布流程的指定阶段' - specified stage of a release pipeline). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'CreatePipelineRun' or 'GetPipelineRun', which also operate on pipeline runs. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pipeline run ID from 'GetPipelineRun'), exclusions, or comparisons to other pipeline-related tools. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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