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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a dashboard using the specified ID,' which implies a read-only operation but does not clarify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the return includes (e.g., JSON structure, status codes). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it misses critical operational details an agent needs for reliable invocation.

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: 'Get a dashboard using the specified ID.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It hints at an ID parameter not in the schema, lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error cases), and does not address sibling differentiation. For even a basic retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively, especially without annotations to fill in safety or operational details.

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 with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'using the specified ID,' which implies a parameter (likely an ID) is needed, but this is not reflected in the schema. Since there are 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description adds some semantic hint about an ID, though it contradicts the empty schema, indicating potential inconsistency rather than compensation.

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 'Get a dashboard using the specified ID' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_dashboard' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'dashboard', but lacks any distinguishing details about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, fetch data, or return full configuration) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_by_id' or 'list_dashboards', making it vague and minimally informative.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a dashboard ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_dashboard_by_id' (which may have similar functionality) or 'list_dashboards' (for broader retrieval). This absence of context leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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