Retrieve Datadog notebooks by ID to access and review monitoring dashboards, log analyses, or metric visualizations for operational insights.
Get a notebook 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": "notebooks_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. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and adds no context beyond the basic action.
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 ('Get a notebook by ID') with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., notebook details, content, metadata) or any behavioral aspects, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and 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 with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the schema completeness. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any 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 a notebook by ID' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('notebook'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch content). It distinguishes from siblings like 'notebooks_list' and 'notebooks_create' by specifying 'by ID', but lacks specificity on the scope of retrieval.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'notebooks_list' for listing all notebooks). The description implies usage when you have a specific notebook ID, but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.