MCP Datadog Server

create_application_keys

Generate application keys for Datadog API access to enable monitoring, log management, and metrics submission through automated tools.

Instructions

Create an application key with a given name.

Tool call template

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": "create_application_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 20, 2025

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 creation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this generates secrets, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and potential parameter handling through unknownKeys passthrough, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'application key' is, how it differs from other key types, what the creation entails, or what gets returned. The mismatch between description and schema further complicates understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mentions 'with a given name,' which implies a name parameter is required. However, the input schema shows 0 parameters and 100% coverage, suggesting parameters might be handled differently (e.g., via unknownKeys passthrough). The description adds some semantic context about naming, but there's a mismatch with the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('application key'), specifying it requires a name parameter. It's specific enough to understand the basic function, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_api_keys' or 'create_current_user_application_keys'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 multiple sibling tools for creating different types of keys (api_keys, current_user_application_keys, service_account_application_keys), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions between these similar tools.

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

Deploy Server