Retrieve and display all Service Level Objectives configured in Datadog for monitoring system performance and reliability metrics.
List Service Level Objectives
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_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits - no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, sorting, or what the response contains. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 - just three words that directly convey the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits important contextual information that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
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 and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (full list? paginated? what fields?), how results are organized, or any constraints. The agent would need to invoke the tool blindly to understand its behavior, which defeats the purpose of a helpful description.
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, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation (none). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the schema provides.
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 Service Level Objectives' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Service Level Objectives'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope or format, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_slos' or 'get_slos' that appear to serve similar purposes.
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. With sibling tools like 'search_slos' and 'get_slos' available, there's no indication whether this is for comprehensive listing, filtered searches, or specific retrieval. The agent must guess based on naming conventions alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.