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. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination ('This endpoint is paginated') and limited return data ('Only basic app information such as the app ID, name, and description is returned'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it).

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: states purpose, mentions pagination, and specifies return data. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple list operation. It covers pagination and return data scope, but lacks details on error handling, authentication, rate limits, or example usage. For a tool with no structured metadata, it's minimally complete but leaves gaps in operational guidance.

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 (schema description coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'optional filters and sorting' which might suggest parameters exist, but since the schema explicitly has none, this is slightly misleading. However, with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all apps, with optional filters and sorting.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('apps'), and scope ('all'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_builder_app' (singular) or 'create_app_builder_apps'. The distinction is implied but not stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'optional filters and sorting' but doesn't specify what filters are available or when to use this versus other list/search tools in the sibling set. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools for different use cases.

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