Retrieve specific role details by ID from Datadog to manage user permissions and access control within your monitoring environment.
Get role 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": "roles_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 the full burden. 'Get role by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 ('Get role by ID') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word contributes to the core purpose, though it could benefit from more context.
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 read operation with no parameters but likely requiring an ID context) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the ID is specified (e.g., path parameter), what the return value includes, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
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 are documented. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, it doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description is sufficient for a parameterless tool, though it could hint at how the ID is provided (e.g., in the URL).
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 role by ID' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('role'), but it's vague about what 'role' refers to (e.g., user role, system role) and lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_roles' (likely a list operation) or 'get_role' (similar but with different parameters), making it minimally adequate but with gaps.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving a single role by ID versus using 'get_roles' for listing roles or 'get_role' (another sibling) for different parameters. The description offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.