MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: 1) results are paginated (linking to pagination documentation), and 2) it uses a specific search query syntax (linking to search syntax documentation). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains pagination behavior, and the third provides usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, though the documentation links could be integrated more smoothly.

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 0 parameters, the description provides adequate coverage for a search/list tool. It explains the search capability and pagination behavior. However, it doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps for a tool that presumably returns complex data.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does provide context about the search query mechanism through documentation links. This adds value beyond the empty schema, earning a score above the baseline 3 for zero-parameter tools.

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 clearly states the tool 'returns CI Visibility pipeline events that match a search query' and 'List endpoint' indicates it's a read operation. It specifies the resource type (CI Visibility pipeline events) and action (search/list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_ci_tests_events' or 'get_ci_pipelines_events' beyond mentioning search capabilities.

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 some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to build complex events filtering and search.' This implies when to use it (for complex filtering/search) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like simpler listing tools. No comparison to sibling tools is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.