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. The description only states it queries deployment orders by creation origin, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (pagination, sorting, etc.), or any rate limits. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent usage.

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 one sentence in Chinese, which efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context about when to use it. There's no wasted language, but it might be too brief given the tool's complexity and the lack of annotations.

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 has 5 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or any error conditions. For a query tool with multiple filtering parameters in a complex application delivery context, more completeness is needed to guide effective agent usage.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'originType' values might be acceptable, what 'appName' and 'envName' filtering does, or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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] 根据创建来源查询部署单' states the tool queries deployment orders by creation origin, which is a clear purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'deployment orders' specifically are and doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_change_orders' or 'list_change_requests' that might have similar functionality. The Chinese phrase '部署单' could be interpreted as 'deployment orders' or 'change orders,' but the English tool name clarifies it's about change orders.

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 'list_change_orders', 'list_change_requests', and 'get_change_order', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice. The description mentions querying by creation origin, but doesn't explain when that filtering is needed versus other filtering methods available in other tools.

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