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 states the tool 'gets' data (implying read-only) and mentions no JSON arguments, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'one log index' means (e.g., by ID, default, or random). The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral insight.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the parameter requirement. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally specify what 'one log index' entails (e.g., how it's selected) or mention authentication needs. It meets basic requirements but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.

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 with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description explicitly states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments', which aligns with the schema and adds clarity. This compensates adequately for the lack of 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 action ('Get') and resource ('one log index from your organization'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_indexes' (plural) by specifying 'one log index', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other log-related tools in the list.

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 mentions 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments', which is a technical constraint but not usage context. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are stated.

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