Retrieve and display events from Datadog monitoring platform to track system activities and incidents.
List events
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": "events_list"
}
}| 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 for behavioral disclosure. 'List events' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the events are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide essential behavioral context.
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 consists of just two words, which is appropriately concise for a simple tool. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication. While not verbose, the description fails to convey necessary context that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
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 zero parameters and lack of output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'events' means in this system, how results are returned, and how this differs from similar tools. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and appropriate usage scenarios, especially with multiple event-related siblings available.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter gaps, and 'List events' appropriately indicates this is a simple listing operation without filtering parameters. The baseline for zero parameters with full schema coverage is 4.
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 'List events' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'events_list' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('events'), but fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_events' that might have different functionality. The description lacks specificity about scope, filtering, or output format.
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 sibling tools like 'search_events', 'get_events', and 'events_post' available, the agent receives no indication of whether this tool is for basic listing, filtered searching, or other purposes. There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.