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 action ('获取发布流程列表') without mentioning permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what data is returned. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this leaves critical operational details unspecified, though it implies a read-only operation.

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 phrase ('获取发布流程列表') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it lacks structural elements like context or usage notes that could enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination. For a list operation in a complex system with many siblings, 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., ProjectId, Status with enum values, PageSize). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline 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 '获取发布流程列表' (Get pipeline run list) states the basic action and resource but lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from similar list tools like ListWorkflowInstances or ListTaskInstances, nor does it clarify what 'pipeline runs' are beyond the name. The purpose is understandable but vague about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., ListWorkflowInstances, ListTaskInstances), the description doesn't explain the context for selecting this specific list tool, such as for deployment processes versus other workflow types. It offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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