AlibabaCloud DevOps MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool cancels a change request, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this is reversible, requires permissions, affects related resources, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with a single phrase, 'Cancel a change request', and includes a bracketed context '[application delivery]' that efficiently sets the domain. There is no wasted verbiage, making it front-loaded and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the outcome of cancellation, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'close_change_request'. For a mutation tool in a rich context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'organizationId', 'appName', and 'sn' documented in Chinese. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as format examples or relationships. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'Cancel a change request' clearly states the action (cancel) and resource (change request), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'cancel' entails (e.g., aborting, marking as obsolete) and doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'close_change_request', making it vague in comparison.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_change_request' or other change request-related tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions for cancellation, or what happens after cancellation, leaving the agent without usage context.

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