DataWorks MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a query (read operation) but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what '发布态信息' specifically includes (e.g., version, status, endpoints). For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '发布态信息' entails in the response, how to interpret results, or any behavioral nuances. For a query tool in a complex data service context, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (ProjectId, ApiId, TenantId) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it queries based on these IDs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '查询数据服务API的发布态信息' clearly states the action (查询/query) and resource (数据服务API的发布态信息/published state information of data service APIs), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetDataServiceApi' (which likely gets non-published API info) or 'ListDataServicePublishedApis' (which likely lists multiple published APIs), leaving the distinction unclear.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a published API), exclusions (e.g., not for draft APIs), or comparisons to siblings like 'GetDataServiceApi' or 'ListDataServicePublishedApis', leaving usage context implied at best.

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