DataWorks MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it queries a list, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no catalogs match. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase. While this is efficient, it may be too brief for a tool with 8 parameters and complex filtering capabilities. However, it does front-load the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning points for efficiency.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'data catalog' means in this context, what the return format looks like, or how the various filtering parameters interact. The description should provide more context about the domain and expected usage patterns given the tool's complexity.

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 all 8 parameters thoroughly. The 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, which applies here.

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 '查询数据地图数据目录列表' (Query data map data catalog list) states a vague purpose - it mentions querying a list but doesn't specify what kind of catalogs or what the tool actually returns. While it includes the verb 'query' and resource 'data catalog list', it lacks specificity about the domain context (data governance/metadata management) and doesn't distinguish from other list tools like ListDatabases or ListTables.

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. There are many other list tools in the sibling set (ListDatabases, ListTables, ListFunctions, etc.), but the description doesn't explain what makes this catalog listing different or when it should be chosen over other listing tools. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.

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