Retrieve workflow instance details from Alibaba Cloud DataWorks to monitor execution status and analyze data processing operations.
获取工作流实例的详情
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "GetWorkflowInstance"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Id | No | 工作流实例的唯一标识符 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it retrieves details, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), response format, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential errors, or the return structure. For a retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and output.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('Id'), so the schema already documents it well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying an ID is needed. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without 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 '获取工作流实例的详情' (Get workflow instance details) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('工作流实例' - workflow instance), but it's vague about what '详情' (details) includes. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'GetWorkflowDefinition' or 'ListWorkflowInstances' beyond the specific resource type.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an instance ID), comparison to 'ListWorkflowInstances' for listing multiple instances, or when this retrieval is appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.