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 mentions 'Get the list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'configured' means versus unconfigured archives. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy 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 parameterless read operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. With no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain what the return format looks like (e.g., array of archive objects, pagination metadata) or any constraints. The presence of similar sibling tools suggests this tool might have specific scope that isn't clarified.

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 doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 ('list of configured logs archives with their definitions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archive' (singular) or 'get_logs_config_archive_orders', which could cause confusion about when to use this plural version versus others.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archive' (singular) and 'get_logs_config_archive_orders' present, the agent receives no indication whether this tool is for listing all archives, filtered archives, or something else. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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