List all authentication mappings in your Datadog organization to manage user access and permissions effectively.
List all AuthN Mappings in the 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_authn_mappings"
}
}| 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 a read operation ('List'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List all AuthN Mappings') and specifies the scope ('in the org'), making it 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what AuthN Mappings are, the return format, or any behavioral traits like ordering or limits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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 fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all AuthN Mappings in the org'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_authn_mapping' (singular) or 'create_authn_mappings', but the scope ('all') is explicit.
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_authn_mapping' (singular) or 'search' tools. The description implies a bulk retrieval but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions, or contextual constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.