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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, or has any rate limits. It mentions optional filters but doesn't explain how they work (e.g., exact match vs. partial). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('List dashboards') and adds optional details ('with optional name/tags filters'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it communicates the essential information in minimal words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a list operation with potential filtering), no annotations, no output schema, and a schema that shows 0 parameters (contradicting the description's mention of filters), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, error conditions, or how the optional filters are implemented. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'optional name/tags filters,' which suggests filtering capabilities, but since the schema shows no parameters, this might be misleading or indicate that filters are handled differently (e.g., via query parameters not in the schema). Given zero parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description adds some context about filtering despite the schema contradiction.

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 ('List') and resource ('dashboards'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional filters ('name/tags filters'), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'list_monitors' or 'get_dashboards', which appear to serve similar purposes for different resources.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific scenarios. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is the primary way to retrieve dashboards or if there are other list/get tools with different filtering capabilities.

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