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 '查看' (view), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), describe output format (e.g., list structure, pagination details), or mention rate limits or authentication needs. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral traits undocumented, though it correctly implies a non-destructive action.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese: '[application delivery] 查看部署单版本列表'. It's front-loaded with the domain and action, with zero wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it's a filtered list tool, but its brevity is generally effective for conveying the core purpose without redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, filtering, pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like read-only safety, output format, or error handling, nor does it provide usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output details, making it inadequate for full understanding.

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 well-documented in the schema (e.g., organizationId, appName, envNames for filtering, pagination defaults). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between filters or typical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from 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 '[application delivery] 查看部署单版本列表' states the purpose as viewing a list of deployment order versions, which is clear but vague. It specifies the domain (application delivery) and resource (deployment order versions), but lacks specificity about what 'list' entails (e.g., filtered, paginated) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_change_orders_by_origin' or 'list_change_requests'. This is adequate but has gaps in distinguishing functionality.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing organization and app context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_change_order' (for single version) or 'list_change_orders_by_origin' (for different filtering). Without explicit or implied usage context, users must infer from parameters alone, leading to potential misuse.

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