MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detail' includes (e.g., fields returned). The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part ('Get downtime detail by `downtime_id`') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 contradictory parameter hint, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detail' includes, error handling, or authentication needs. For a read operation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly, especially with the schema-parameter mismatch.

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 parameters are documented. The description mentions 'by `downtime_id`', which suggests a parameter is needed despite the schema indicating none. This adds semantic value by hinting at a required identifier, but it's inconsistent with the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but the contradiction slightly reduces clarity.

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 downtime detail by `downtime_id`' states the action (get) and resource (downtime detail), but it's vague about what 'detail' entails. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_downtimes' (plural) by implying single-item retrieval, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other downtime-related tools like 'downtimes_cancel' or 'update_downtime'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid downtime_id), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'get_downtimes' for listing multiple downtimes. Usage is implied only by the parameter reference.

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