Retrieve detailed information about a specific Datadog monitor using its unique identifier to view configuration and status.
Get a monitor by ID
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_monitor_by_id"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. It only states the action without any information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value looks like (especially since there's no output schema). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, concise sentence ('Get a monitor by ID'), which is front-loaded but under-specified. While it avoids waste, it lacks necessary elaboration for clarity and completeness, making it more sparse than efficiently concise.
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, no output schema, and a description that only repeats the tool name, this is completely inadequate. The tool likely retrieves a specific monitor, but the description fails to explain what a monitor is, how to obtain the ID, or what data is returned, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not add parameter details, but with no parameters, the baseline is appropriately high as there's nothing missing. It implies an ID is needed but doesn't specify format or source.
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 monitor by ID' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'monitor' but lacks any distinguishing details about what a monitor is in this context or how this differs from other monitor-related tools like 'get_monitor', 'list_monitors', or 'search_monitors' among the siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools (e.g., 'get_monitor', 'list_monitors', 'search_monitors') that might serve similar or overlapping purposes, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.