Retrieve specific incident details from Datadog by ID to monitor and troubleshoot system issues effectively.
Get incident 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": "incidents_get"
}
}| 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 incident by ID' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or the format of returned data. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
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 extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words. For a simple retrieval tool, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. While concise, it fails to provide necessary context about what an 'incident' represents in this system, what data is returned, or any behavioral expectations. For a tool that presumably returns structured incident data, more context would be helpful despite the simple parameterless interface.
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 already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 incident by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('incident'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'incidents_list' or 'incidents_create'. It specifies 'by ID' which adds some specificity, but doesn't clarify what constitutes an incident in this context.
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 like 'incidents_list' (for listing incidents) and 'incidents_create' (for creating incidents), there's no indication of when retrieval by ID is appropriate versus other incident-related operations. No prerequisites or constraints are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.