Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Datadog Server

MCP Datadog Server

by ClaudioLazaro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_service_account_application_keys_v2

Retrieve application keys associated with a service account for secure API access and authentication in Datadog monitoring operations.

Instructions

Get an application key owned by this service account.

Tool call template

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_service_account_application_keys_v2"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. This is insufficient 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.

Conciseness5/5

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 is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple zero-parameter design, the description is minimal. It lacks context on what 'Get' entails (e.g., single vs. multiple keys, authentication needs, or return format), making it incomplete for effective agent use despite low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none. Baseline 4 is suitable for zero-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 ('an application key owned by this service account'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_account_application_keys_v2_2' or 'get_application_key', leaving some ambiguity about scope or version differences.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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, such as other 'get' tools for application keys or service accounts. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools