Retrieve user details by ID from Datadog to manage access, permissions, and user information within your monitoring environment.
Get a user by ID
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": "users_get"
}
}| 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. 'Get a user by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get a user by ID'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
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, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output. For a read operation with no parameters, it's functional but could benefit from additional guidance or behavioral details to be fully complete.
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, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No parameters are mentioned, which is appropriate given the schema.
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 'Get a user by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user'), specifying the lookup method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'users_list' and 'get_users' by focusing on single-user retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other user-related tools beyond the naming convention.
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 sibling tools like 'users_list' for listing multiple users or 'get_user' (which appears to be a duplicate), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a user ID. Usage context is entirely implied from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.