Search Datadog metrics from the last 24 hours to monitor system performance and track key indicators.
Search for metrics from the last 24 hours in Datadog.
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": "search_resources"
}
}| 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 mentions the 24-hour time constraint, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like. The description is minimal but doesn't contradict any annotations.
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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Search for metrics' (action), 'from the last 24 hours' (constraint), 'in Datadog' (context). There is no wasted verbiage or 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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It specifies the resource (metrics), time range (24 hours), and system (Datadog). However, for a search operation, it lacks details on output format, pagination, sorting, or error conditions. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to cover behavioral aspects, but it's adequate for a simple, parameterless query.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does imply a fixed time range ('last 24 hours'), which could be considered an implicit constraint. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds some context without redundancy.
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 action ('Search for metrics') and resource ('from Datadog'), with a specific time constraint ('from the last 24 hours'). It distinguishes from general search tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_resources' or 'metrics_query_timeseries' that might also retrieve metrics.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a 24-hour time window but doesn't specify if this is a hard constraint, nor does it reference any sibling tools for different time ranges or query types. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.