Modify existing Datadog incidents to reflect current status changes, resolve issues, or update incident details through the MCP Datadog Server.
Update incident
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_update"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Update incident' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether the update is destructive or reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response looks like. No behavioral context is provided beyond the basic verb.
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?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide the necessary information an agent needs to understand and use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, this is severely incomplete. The agent cannot understand what this tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or how to invoke it properly. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool selection and invocation.
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 there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. However, it also doesn't explain why there are no parameters or what the update mechanism might be, which could be confusing for a tool named 'update'.
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 'Update incident' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'incidents_update' without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what aspects of an incident can be updated, what resources are involved, or how this differs from other incident-related tools like 'incidents_create', 'incidents_get', or 'incidents_list'.
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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to incidents (incidents_create, incidents_get, incidents_list), but the description doesn't indicate when an update operation is appropriate versus creating a new incident or retrieving existing ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.