MCP Datadog 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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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 without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter creation tool and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise statement.

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?

For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'RUM application' entails, what happens after creation, whether there are limitations or constraints, or how this differs from other creation operations. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively compared to alternatives.

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 zero parameters (parameter count: 0, schema description coverage: 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent parameters. With no parameters to explain, the baseline score is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema coverage gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new RUM application') and specifies the scope ('in your organization'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'create_' sibling tools like 'create_rum_application_retention_filters' or 'create_rum_config_metrics', leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this specific creation tool versus others.

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 (including other RUM-related creation tools like 'create_rum_application_retention_filters'), there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this particular creation operation is appropriate versus other creation operations in the system.

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