Retrieve and display a list of incidents from Datadog for monitoring and incident management purposes.
List incidents
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_list"
}
}| 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 but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it supports pagination or filtering, or the format of returned data, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 ('List incidents'), which is front-loaded but under-specified. While it avoids waste, it lacks necessary detail for a tool that likely returns multiple incidents, making it inefficient in conveying needed context beyond the bare minimum.
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 a simple but incomplete description, the tool is inadequately documented. For a list operation, details like return format, pagination, or filtering options are missing, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the zero-parameter simplicity.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but since there are no parameters to explain, this is adequate, meeting the baseline for tools without inputs.
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 'List incidents' restates the tool name 'incidents_list' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'incidents' but lacks detail on scope, format, or differentiation from siblings like 'incidents_get' or 'incidents_create', leaving the purpose vague beyond the obvious.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'incidents_get' (likely for single incidents) and 'incidents_create', the description fails to indicate this is for listing multiple incidents, offering no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.