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 for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'queries' schemas without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format might be, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 8 parameters including pagination, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 technically efficient, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence doesn't waste words but also doesn't provide meaningful guidance. It's front-loaded by default since there's only one phrase, but the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'schemas' mean in this context, what the tool returns, or how results are structured. The agent would need to infer behavior from the parameter names alone, which is insufficient for proper tool selection and invocation.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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模式列表' (Query data map database schema list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListSchemas' in Chinese. It provides a generic verb 'query' without specifying what kind of schemas are being listed or distinguishing this tool from other list tools like ListTables, ListDatabases, or ListFunctions. The purpose is vague and lacks specific differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for filtering schemas, or relationships to other tools like GetSchema (which likely retrieves a single schema). With many sibling list tools available, the absence of usage differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate application scenarios.

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