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 action ('get list') without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by PageSize/PageNumber but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on empty results. 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese ('获取数据开发工作流列表') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning key aspects like filtering or pagination to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how to interpret results. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as how filters interact or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 '获取数据开发工作流列表' (Get data development workflow list) clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('workflow list'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'ListWorkflows' or 'ListWorkflowInstances'. It specifies 'data development' workflows, which provides some context, but lacks precision about what exactly is being listed.

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 siblings like 'ListWorkflows', 'ListWorkflowInstances', and 'GetWorkflowDefinition', the description doesn't explain how this differs (e.g., listing definitions vs. instances, or filtered vs. comprehensive lists). The absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing.

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