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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no service exists. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. While concise, it lacks crucial context: what exactly is returned (e.g., a single service name, a list, or configuration details), error handling, or integration state requirements. For a tool that presumably retrieves integration data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('service name in the Datadog-PagerDuty integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'delete_integration_pagerduty_configuration_service' or other integration-related tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_integration_pagerduty_configuration_services' or 'update_integration_pagerduty_configuration_service'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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