DataWorks MCP Server

UpdateColumnBusinessMetadata

Update business metadata descriptions for data table columns in DataWorks to improve data governance and documentation.

Instructions

更新数据地图数据表字段的业务元数据

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "Id": "<Id>"
    },
    "name": "UpdateColumnBusinessMetadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`Id`	Yes	字段ID，可参考[元数据实体相关概念说明](~~2880092~~)
`Description`	No	字段业务描述

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing metadata not specified, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information to operate the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Id' and 'Description') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('更新' meaning 'update') and the resource ('数据地图数据表字段的业务元数据' meaning 'business metadata of data table fields in the data map'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateTableBusinessMetadata', which might handle metadata at the table level rather than column level.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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, such as 'UpdateTableBusinessMetadata' for table-level updates or other metadata tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios for updating column business metadata.

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

Deploy Server