Retrieve detailed information about specific Datadog events using their unique event ID to monitor and analyze system activities.
Get the details of an event by event_id.
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_event"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the event details are returned in, or if there are any rate limits or error conditions. The description is too sparse 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 that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It directly states what the tool does and how to use it (via event_id), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the expected response format, or any error handling. While concise, it lacks the contextual depth needed for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.
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 (100% coverage), so the description appropriately doesn't need to explain parameters. It mentions 'event_id' as the identifier, which is helpful context even though it's not a formal parameter. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools with no 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of an event'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_events' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single event by ID, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other event-related tools beyond this implicit 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_event' over 'get_events' or 'search_events', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or permissions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.