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. It states '导入' (import) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing workflows, requires specific permissions, returns an identifier, or has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 ('导入数据开发工作流') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 importing a workflow (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Spec' contains, how the import works, what happens on success/failure, or what the tool returns. For a tool with 2 parameters and significant implied behavior, more context is needed.

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 documented in the schema: 'ProjectId' (DataWorks workspace ID) and 'Spec' (FlowSpec information describing the workflow). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 '导入数据开发工作流' (Import data development workflow) states a clear verb ('导入' - import) and resource ('数据开发工作流' - data development workflow), but it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being imported. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'CreateWorkflowDefinition' (which likely creates new workflows) by focusing on import, but doesn't specify the source format or mechanism.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow definition file), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'CreateWorkflowDefinition' or 'UpdateWorkflowDefinition' in the sibling list.

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