Retrieve Datadog service level objectives (SLOs) by their unique ID to monitor application performance and reliability metrics.
Get SLO 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": "slos_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. It only states 'Get SLO by ID', offering no behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This is inadequate 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 SLO by ID')—just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as what an SLO is, the return format, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool in a complex domain (SLOs), this minimal description fails to provide enough information for effective use.
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% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
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 SLO by ID' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('SLO'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'slos_list' or 'search_slos' by specifying 'by ID', but lacks specificity on the scope or format of the returned data.
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. Siblings include 'slos_list', 'search_slos', and 'get_slo_history', but the description doesn't mention these or clarify that this tool is for fetching a single SLO when you have its ID, unlike list/search tools for multiple SLOs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.