Retrieve and list cost budgets from Datadog to monitor and manage cloud spending effectively.
List budgets.
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_cost_budgets"
}
}| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List budgets' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the output format might be, if there are rate limits, or if it returns all budgets or a paginated subset. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 extremely concise with just two words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place, but the description may be too brief for effective use.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description 'List budgets' is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'budgets' refer to (e.g., cost budgets), the scope of listing, or the return format. With no annotations and a vague purpose, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and output.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain any inputs. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
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 budgets' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_cost_budgets'. While it indicates a read operation on budgets, it lacks specificity about what kind of budgets (e.g., cost budgets, project budgets) or what scope is covered. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_cost_budget' (singular) and 'update_cost_budgets', it doesn't clearly differentiate itself beyond the plural form.
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. There are sibling tools like 'get_cost_budget' (singular), 'update_cost_budgets', and various other get_* tools, but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for listing all budgets, filtered budgets, or something else. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.