MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the rule is added last in order, mandatory relationships, exclusive attribute choices, and default scanning behavior. This covers creation logic and constraints well, though it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error responses.

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 highly concise and well-structured: four sentences that each convey critical information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action and ordering, followed by specific constraints, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of creating a scanning rule with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description provides good coverage of creation logic and constraints. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool. It's adequate but not fully complete.

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% coverage, meaning no parameters are defined. The description compensates by detailing the required content of the request body (group relationship, pattern choice, attribute handling), adding semantic meaning beyond the empty schema. This is valuable, though not exhaustive for all possible fields.

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 scanning rule') and resource ('in a sensitive data scanner group'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_sensitive_data_scanner_config_groups' or 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 some usage context by specifying constraints (e.g., 'ordered last', 'MUST include a group relationship', exclusive choice between pattern types), which implies when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule' or prerequisites, keeping it at an implied level.

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