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. It only states the query action without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like (e.g., paginated list), or any rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, especially for a query tool in a data management system.

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, thoroughly documenting all 6 parameters including 'TableId' (required), 'Order', 'PageSize', 'PageNumber', 'SortBy', and 'Name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating 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 clearly states the action ('查询' meaning 'query') and resource ('数据地图数据表的分区列表' meaning 'partition list of data map data tables'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetPartition' or 'ListTables', which appear to serve related but distinct purposes in the same domain.

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 no explicit instructions about prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetPartition' (which might retrieve a single partition) or 'ListTables' (which might list tables rather than partitions).

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