Create service level objectives (SLOs) in Datadog to define and monitor performance targets for your applications and infrastructure.
Create SLO
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": "slos_create"
}
}| 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. 'Create SLO' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
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 'Create SLO' is technically concise, it represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The two-word description fails to provide necessary context and is too minimal to be helpful. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description provides almost no value beyond the tool name itself.
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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The description fails to explain what an SLO is, what data is required for creation, what the tool returns, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't mention the lack of parameters, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4 since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters.
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 'Create SLO' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'slos_create'. It provides no additional information about what an SLO is, what resources it creates, or what specific functionality this tool offers beyond the basic verb. While it indicates a creation action, it lacks specificity about the resource being created.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context for creation. With sibling tools like 'slos_get', 'slos_list', 'slos_update', and 'slos_delete', the description fails to distinguish when creation is appropriate versus other SLO operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.