Unmute a silenced Datadog monitor to resume alerting and monitoring operations when issues are resolved.
Unmute the specified monitor.
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": "unmute_monitor"
}
}| 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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Unmute' implies a state change operation, the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the monitor is already unmuted, whether the change is reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'unmute' means operationally, what permissions are required, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of monitor management systems, more context is needed for proper agent usage.
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 parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no parameters are needed by stating 'the specified monitor' without mentioning any inputs. This meets the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
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 ('Unmute') and the resource ('the specified monitor'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'unmute_monitor_v1' or 'unmute_host', leaving some ambiguity about which unmute operation to use in different contexts.
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. There are multiple sibling tools with similar unmute functionality (unmute_monitor_v1, unmute_host), but no indication of which to choose or any prerequisites for using this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.