DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the query action without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by PageSize/PageNumber but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple description, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a list operation with filtering and pagination parameters, more context is needed.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no explanation of how filtering with RoleCodes/UserIds works together). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '查询工作空间成员列表' (Query workspace member list) states the basic action (query/list) and resource (workspace members), but it's vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify whether this lists all members or filtered subsets, nor how it differs from GetProjectMember (which appears to fetch a single member).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetProjectMember or CreateProjectMember. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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