Modify your Datadog organization settings through API integration to maintain accurate monitoring configurations and operational parameters.
Update your organization.
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_org"
}
}| 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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what gets updated, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely 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?
While technically concise with three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It doesn't front-load important information or provide any meaningful content beyond the tool name. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase fails to provide value.
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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain what 'organization' means in this context, what fields can be updated, what permissions are required, and what the tool returns. The current description provides none of this necessary context.
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% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the absence of parameters, though the description could theoretically add context about why no parameters are needed.
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 'Update your organization' restates the tool name 'update_org' without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('organization') but provides no details about what aspects can be updated, making it a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement. Compared to sibling tools like 'update_dashboard' or 'update_monitor', it lacks differentiation.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or distinguish it from similar tools like 'update_org_config' or 'create_orgs'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.