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 states it 'gets' configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it lacks context about how this fits into the broader system, what 'detailed configuration' includes, or any usage constraints. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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 parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools when the schema is fully described.

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 ('detailed configuration associated with a Synthetic Mobile test'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from generic 'get' operations by specifying the exact resource type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests' or 'get_synthetics_tests_browser'.

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. With many sibling tools (including other 'get_synthetics_' tools), there's no indication of whether this retrieves a single test, all tests, or filtered results, nor any prerequisites or context for usage.

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