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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the details are returned in, whether it's paginated, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. The bracketed prefix '[VM Deploy Order Management]' provides helpful categorization, and the main statement is direct. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is reflected in other dimension scores.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, what format they come in, or provide any context about the VM deploy order domain. The agent would need to guess about the return structure and behavioral characteristics.

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 three parameters (organizationId, pipelineId, deployOrderId) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 'Get VM deploy order details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('VM deploy order details'), but it's vague about what specific details are retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_change_order' or 'get_pipeline_run' that might also retrieve order-like entities in this system.

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 (over 100), there's no indication whether this is the primary way to retrieve VM deploy orders or if other tools like 'list_change_orders_by_origin' might serve similar purposes. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.

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