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. The description only states it's a query/list operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), authentication requirements, rate limits, whether results are filtered or complete, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 7 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 - a single Chinese phrase. While this is efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. However, it doesn't waste words or have structural issues. Given the schema does heavy lifting, the brevity isn't necessarily problematic for conciseness alone.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'data map databases' are, how results are structured, what authentication is needed, or typical usage patterns. The schema covers parameter mechanics but the description fails to provide necessary context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.

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 '查询数据地图数据库列表' (Query data map database list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListDatabases' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what kind of databases (metadata databases, data catalogs, etc.) or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like ListCatalogs, ListSchemas, or ListTables. The purpose is vague beyond the obvious list operation.

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. With many sibling list tools (ListCatalogs, ListSchemas, ListTables, etc.), the description doesn't indicate whether this is for listing databases within a specific parent entity, for general database discovery, or how it relates to other listing tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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