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. '获取数据源列表' implies a read-only list operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is paginated, what the return format is, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with a single phrase ('获取数据源列表'), which is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the basic action.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, pagination behavior, or how filtering works with multiple parameters. For a list tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 all 9 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., ProjectId, Order, Types). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>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 '获取数据源列表' (Get data source list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListDataSources' in Chinese. It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('数据源列表' - data source list), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListDataServiceApis' or 'ListDataQualityRules' beyond the resource type. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about scope or context.

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 list tools (e.g., ListDataServiceApis, ListDataQualityRules), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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