Retrieve and display all available roles from Datadog to manage user permissions and access control across your monitoring environment.
List roles
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_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 provides none. 'List roles' 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. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool behaves.
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?
While 'List roles' is technically concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The two words fail to provide necessary context about what the tool actually does beyond the obvious. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this description does not achieve.
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 list operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The agent needs to know what 'roles' means in this context, what information is returned, whether there are filters or pagination, and how to interpret results. The description provides none of this essential context.
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 any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is warranted since no parameter documentation is needed, though a perfect 5 would require the description to explicitly state 'no parameters required'.
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 roles' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'roles_list'. It provides the basic verb 'List' and resource 'roles', but lacks specificity about what kind of roles or what information is included. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, though most siblings are create/delete/update operations rather than list operations.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to other list operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.