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 mentions the limitation on preset dashboards, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no 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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first, followed by a clarifying note. Both sentences are necessary and add value without waste. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains efficient and clear.

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 adequate but has gaps. It explains what is returned (custom/cloned dashboards) but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or response format. For a read operation with no structured data, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete.

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, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param details, which is acceptable. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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: 'Get all dashboards.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('dashboards'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard' or 'list_dashboards', which might offer similar functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 includes a note clarifying that it only returns custom or cloned dashboards, not preset ones, which provides some context on when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., other dashboard retrieval tools) or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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