Archive Datadog cases to organize and preserve monitoring data for compliance and analysis purposes.
Archive case
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_case_archive"
}
}| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive case' implies a mutation (archiving), but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects case visibility or status, or what the expected outcome is. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe invocation.
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 ('Archive case'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it fails to convey necessary context. While front-loaded, it doesn't earn its place with meaningful content beyond the tool name.
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 (a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what archiving does, its effects, or return values. For a tool that likely changes state, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters.
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 'Archive case' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_case_archive' without adding meaningful clarification. It specifies the verb ('Archive') and resource ('case'), but lacks any distinguishing details about what archiving entails or how it differs from similar operations like 'create_case_unarchive' in the sibling list.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., case must exist, be in a specific state), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_case_unarchive' or 'create_cases'. This leaves the agent with no context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.