Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Datadog Server

MCP Datadog Server

by ClaudioLazaro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_error_tracking_issue_assignee

Change the assignee of a Datadog error tracking issue using its issue ID to manage ownership and streamline resolution workflows.

Instructions

Update the assignee of an issue by issue_id.

Tool call template

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": "update_error_tracking_issue_assignee"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the assignee doesn't exist. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'assignee' means (e.g., user ID, team), error conditions, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Parameter count is 0 with 100% schema coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'issue_id' as the identifier, which is helpful context, but since there are no parameters, baseline 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('Update') and target ('assignee of an issue'), but lacks specificity about what resource type (error tracking issue) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_error_tracking_issue_state'. It's clear but generic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'update_error_tracking_issue_state' or 'search_error_tracking_issues'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools