DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only states it's a query operation, implying read-only and non-destructive behavior, but it doesn't specify details like pagination handling (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. For a list tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient 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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese ('查询数据地图集合列表'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. There's no wasted verbiage, 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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or how the filtering parameters interact. For a list tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without annotations or output schema.

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, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., Type with enum values, ParentId, Order, etc.). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 '查询数据地图集合列表' (Query data map collection list) states the verb 'query' and resource 'data map collection list', providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'data map collection' means and doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools like ListEntitiesInMetaCollection or ListMetaCollection (if it existed as a sibling), which might have similar functions.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., ListEntitiesInMetaCollection, ListMetaCollection if present), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks any mention of when this tool is appropriate or what scenarios it's designed for.

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