Retrieve all application keys for your Datadog organization to manage API access and permissions.
List all application keys available for your org
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": "get_application_keys"
}
}| 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. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes meaning. Efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with many sibling tools that could be confused with it, more context about scope, permissions, and output format would be helpful. The description meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement given the complex sibling tool environment.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly indicates no inputs are required for this list operation.
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 ('List all') and resource ('application keys'), specifying scope ('available for your org'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_application_key' (singular) and 'create_application_keys', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'get_api_keys' or 'get_current_user_application_keys'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_user_application_keys' or 'get_service_account_application_keys'. The description implies it's for organizational-level keys, but doesn't state this explicitly or mention prerequisites like authentication requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.