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. The description only states what the tool does ('获取数据开发函数详情') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the return format looks like. For a 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 ('获取数据开发函数详情') that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.

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 retrieving function details in a data development context, the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided to indicate safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to describe return values. The description alone doesn't explain what '详情' (details) includes, how results are structured, or any error conditions. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation.

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%, with both parameters ('Id' and 'ProjectId') clearly documented in the schema as 'UDF函数的唯一标识符' (UDF function's unique identifier) and 'DataWorks工作空间的ID' (DataWorks workspace ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 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 '获取数据开发函数详情' (Get data development function details) clearly states the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('数据开发函数' - data development function). It distinguishes from siblings like 'CreateFunction', 'DeleteFunction', 'ListFunctions', 'MoveFunction', and 'RenameFunction' by specifying retrieval of details rather than creation, deletion, listing, moving, or renaming. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it retrieves details for a specific function rather than all functions, which would make it a perfect 5.

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 when to use 'GetFunction' versus 'ListFunctions' (which likely lists multiple functions) or other sibling tools like 'GetDataServiceApi' or 'GetNode'. There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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