Generate and submit new cases in Datadog for tracking incidents, monitoring alerts, or support requests through API integration.
Create a 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_cases"
}
}| 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. 'Create a Case' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant behavioral information gap.
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 ('Create a Case') but arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it uses minimal words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand what 'Case' means in this domain. The single sentence structure is clear but lacks substance.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Case' is, what data might be needed for creation (despite 0 parameters suggesting maybe none), or what the tool returns. For a creation operation in a system with many case-related tools, more context is needed.
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% schema description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. It gets a baseline 4 because there are no parameters to explain, and the schema fully covers this absence.
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 'Create a Case' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('Case') but provides no details about what a 'Case' represents in this system or what creation entails. Compared to siblings like 'create_case_archive' or 'create_case_assign', it fails to distinguish its specific purpose.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'create_case_archive', 'create_case_assign', and 'create_cases_projects', there is no indication of when this basic case creation tool is appropriate versus more specialized variants. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.