Check if Datadog monitors can be safely deleted before removal to prevent unintended service disruptions.
Check if the given monitors can be deleted.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "can_delete_monitors"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a check operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose whether it requires specific permissions, what criteria determine deletability, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a validation tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and earns its place by clearly communicating the core functionality.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'given monitors' refers to (contextual input), what criteria determine deletability, or what the return value contains (e.g., boolean, list of deletable monitors, reasons for non-deletability). For a validation tool, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description mentions 'given monitors' but doesn't specify how monitors are identified since there are no parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description could clarify if monitors are implicitly determined by context or if this checks all monitors globally.
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 'Check if the given monitors can be deleted' clearly states the action (check) and resource (monitors) with a specific condition (can be deleted). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_monitor' by focusing on validation rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'can_delete_slos' which serves a similar purpose for different resources.
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 implies usage before deletion operations ('can be deleted'), suggesting it should be used to verify deletability. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like directly attempting deletion or checking specific deletion constraints. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.