Submit metrics data to Datadog for monitoring and analysis using the v2 series API endpoint.
Submit metrics (v2 series)
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": "metrics_submit_series"
}
}| 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, and the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read/write operation, authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what happens upon submission. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 ('Submit metrics (v2 series)') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though it could benefit from more detail.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete. The agent lacks information about what 'v2 series' entails, the submission format, success/failure behavior, or how it differs from similar tools. More context is needed for effective use.
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 no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable given the schema completeness. Baseline is high due to no parameters to explain.
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 'Submit metrics (v2 series)' states a verb ('Submit') and resource ('metrics'), but is vague about what 'v2 series' means and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'submit_series' or 'submit_distribution_points'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_series', 'submit_distribution_points', or other metric-related tools. The description offers 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.