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 mentions 'actively reporting metrics' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'actively reporting' means. The description is too sparse for a tool that likely returns dynamic data.

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 front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy. It directly communicates what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'actively reporting metrics' entails, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns a list of metrics with temporal filtering, more details on scope, limitations, and output structure are needed.

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 parameters need documentation. The description adds context by implying a time-based query ('from a given time until now'), which is useful semantic information beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't specify how the time parameter is provided or its format.

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 ('list of actively reporting metrics'), and specifies a time constraint ('from a given time until now'). It distinguishes from generic 'get' operations by focusing on actively reporting metrics with temporal filtering, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metrics_v2' or 'get_metric'.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_metrics_v2' or 'get_metric', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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