Retrieve organization details from Datadog to access configuration, settings, and metadata for monitoring and management operations.
Get organization information.
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_org"
}
}| 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 full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'organization information' encompasses. It lacks critical context needed for safe and effective use.
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 three-word sentence, which is concise. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it wastes no words but fails to convey meaningful information. It's front-loaded by default due to brevity, but lacks substance.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'organization information' includes, how it's returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, the description should provide more context to guide the agent, but it does not.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter situation, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
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 organization information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_org'. It provides a generic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what organization information is retrieved (e.g., details, settings, metadata) or scope (e.g., current, by ID). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_orgs' or 'get_org_config'.
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. There are multiple sibling tools related to organizations (e.g., 'get_orgs', 'get_org_config', 'update_org'), but the description offers no context about differences, prerequisites, or appropriate use cases. This leaves the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.