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 states 'get' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by PageSize/PageNumber but not explained), or that it returns a list (not detailed). The description is minimal, missing key operational context for a tool with parameters.

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 ('获取任务的操作日志列表'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from slight elaboration for clarity. It earns its place but leaves room for improvement in structure with additional context.

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, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (list of logs), error conditions, or how parameters like Date and ProjectEnv affect results. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 (e.g., '任务ID' for Id, '项目环境' for ProjectEnv). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, not explaining parameter interactions or constraints like the 31-day limit for Date. Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 '获取任务的操作日志列表' translates to 'Get task operation logs list', which clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('task operation logs'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListTaskInstanceOperationLogs' or 'GetTaskInstanceLog', leaving ambiguity about scope (task vs. task instance). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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 like 'ListTaskInstanceOperationLogs' or 'GetTaskInstanceLog'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., project environment), or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit instructions for selection among similar tools.

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