Retrieve a list of Okta accounts integrated with Datadog for monitoring and management purposes.
List Okta accounts.
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_integrations_okta_accounts"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes all accounts or filtered ones, or what the output format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 action ('List') and resource ('Okta accounts'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.
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 parameters (simplifying input) but no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Okta accounts' entails, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a listing tool in a complex integration environment, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
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 (empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly imply any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter situation.
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 'List Okta accounts' states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('Okta accounts'), providing basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Okta accounts' refers to (e.g., integrated accounts, user accounts) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_okta_account' (singular) or other integration listing tools. It's adequate but vague.
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 are sibling tools like 'get_integrations_okta_account' (singular) and other integration-related tools (e.g., 'get_integrations_cloudflare_accounts'), but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. It's a bare statement with no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.