Retrieve a list of Datadog notebooks for monitoring dashboards, log analysis, and metrics visualization through API integration.
List notebooks
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_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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, what format they return, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the bare verb 'List'.
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 at just two words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks any additional context that would help an agent understand what 'List notebooks' actually entails in this system.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should at minimum indicate what 'notebooks' are in this context, the scope of listing (all notebooks? user's notebooks?), and basic behavioral characteristics. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered 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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters to document, the description avoids unnecessary complexity, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion.
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 notebooks' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'notebooks_list'. It provides the basic verb+resource but lacks any specificity about scope, format, or what constitutes a 'notebook' in this context. While it distinguishes from obvious non-list siblings like 'notebooks_create' or 'notebooks_delete', it doesn't differentiate from other list operations in the server.
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 many other list/search tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'list_dashboards', 'list_monitors', 'search_monitors', 'get_notebooks'), but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.