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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what happens if the metric doesn't exist, or the format of the return value. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple operation.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain how the metric is specified (contradicting 'specific' with no parameters) or what the return value looks like. For a retrieval tool, this lack of output information is a notable gap, though the simplicity of the operation keeps it from being severely inadequate.

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 fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it could clarify how the metric is identified (e.g., by name or ID, though no parameters exist). Since 0 parameters is straightforward, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, 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 ('a specific log-based metric'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_metrics' (plural) or 'update_logs_config_metric', leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this singular retrieval versus list operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a metric identifier), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_metrics' (which likely lists multiple metrics). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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