AlibabaCloud DevOps MCP Server

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 'Create a new application', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected output format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 very brief—just two phrases: '[application delivery] Create a new application'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, the bracketed context hint feels tacked-on and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly reducing clarity.

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 of creating an application (a mutation with 6 parameters, 2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'application' entails, the implications of creation, error handling, or return values. The bracketed hint adds minimal context, leaving the agent with inadequate information for reliable tool 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%, with all parameters documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'organizationId' as '组织id', 'name' as '应用名'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details 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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('new application'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_app_orchestration' or 'create_app_tag', nor does it specify what an 'application' means in this context beyond the bracketed hint '[application delivery]'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the domain or differentiation from similar creation tools.

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. With many sibling tools like 'create_app_orchestration' or 'update_application', there's no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The bracketed '[application delivery]' hints at a context but is too vague to serve as actionable usage guidance.

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