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. It implies a read-only operation ('get'), but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return data includes (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 phrase ('获取数据地图数据库详情') with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 implied by the parameter format and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'data map database details' returns, how to interpret the ID format in practice, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for 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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'Id', the schema already documents its format and requirements. The description doesn't compensate or add context, so it meets 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 '获取数据地图数据库详情' (Get data map database details) states the verb ('get') and resource ('data map database details'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'data map database details' specifically entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetCatalog', 'GetTable', or 'ListDatabases', leaving ambiguity about scope and specificity.

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. With many sibling tools like 'GetCatalog', 'GetTable', and 'ListDatabases', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it unclear how this tool fits into the broader workflow.

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