Retrieve a list of all teams configured in your Datadog account to manage team members, permissions, and access controls.
List teams
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": "teams_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 teams' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 with just two words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the core action. For a simple list operation with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate.
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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or authentication needs. With no annotations to fill these gaps, the description should provide more context to help an agent use the tool effectively.
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 fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the schema already indicates.
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 teams' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('teams'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of teams are listed (e.g., names, IDs, members) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'teams_get' or 'get_teams' which might have different functionality.
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 'teams_get', 'get_teams', and 'create_teams' available, there's no indication whether this is for listing all teams, filtered lists, or something else. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.