DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what format/details are returned, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. While appropriately sized, it could be considered slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it doesn't provide enough context for optimal tool selection.

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 pipeline run operations in DataWorks, no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how this differs from other pipeline/run retrieval tools, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns structured execution data, more context would be helpful.

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 schema already documents both parameters (ProjectId and Id) with their descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '获取发布流程详细信息' (Get release pipeline details) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('发布流程详细信息' - release pipeline details), but it's somewhat vague about what 'details' specifically include. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'Get' siblings like GetPipelineRunStage or GetWorkflowInstance, which might also retrieve pipeline-related information.

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. With many sibling tools like ListPipelineRuns (which likely lists multiple runs) and GetWorkflowInstance (which might retrieve workflow execution details), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives or what prerequisites might exist.

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