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 implies a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'specific' means (e.g., by ID). The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the purpose but lacks necessary details (e.g., what defines 'specific'), making it somewhat wasteful in its brevity. It could be more structured with additional context.

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 complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the archive, what the return value includes, or any constraints. For a tool that likely requires an identifier (implied by 'specific'), this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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). The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 a specific archive from your organization' restates the tool name ('get_logs_config_archive') with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'archive' but lacks detail on what an archive entails (e.g., logs configuration archive) or how it's identified, making it vague. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_logs_config_archives' (plural) or 'create_logs_config_archives'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an archive ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_logs_config_archives' for listing archives or 'create_logs_config_archives' for creation. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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