Retrieve all associated links for a specific team in Datadog to access team-related resources and information.
Get all links for a given team.
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_team_links_v2"
}
}| 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. It states 'Get all links' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'all links' encompasses (e.g., types of links, scope). 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 minimal description, the tool is under-specified. While it's a simple read operation with no parameters, the description doesn't explain what 'links' are, how they're returned, or any limitations. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, more context is 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% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema. However, it mentions 'for a given team' which might imply a team parameter, but this isn't reflected in the schema, creating slight ambiguity.
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 all links for a given team' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (links for a team), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team_links_v2_2' or 'create_team_links', leaving room for ambiguity about version differences or when to use this specific tool.
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 sibling tools including 'get_team_links_v2_2' (likely a similar tool) and 'create_team_links', there's no indication of differences, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts for selecting this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.