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. It only states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three required 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 extremely concise with a single sentence and no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient 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 no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool in a complex domain with many alternatives, this minimal description is insufficient for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in Chinese (e.g., '组织ID' for organizationId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation adequately.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a variable group') with a domain context hint ('[application delivery]'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_variable_groups' or 'get_env_variable_groups', leaving ambiguity about scope or specificity.

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 such as 'get_app_variable_groups' or 'get_env_variable_groups'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering no usage direction.

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