Skip to main content
Glama
TANTIOPE

Datadog MCP Server

logs

Search and aggregate Datadog logs using text and regex filters, time ranges, and sampling modes for error investigation and time distribution analysis.

Instructions

Search Datadog logs with grep-like text filtering. Actions: search (find logs), aggregate (count/group). Key filters: keyword (text grep), pattern (regex), service, host, status (error/warn/info). Time ranges: "1h", "3d@11:45:23". CORRELATION: Logs contain dd.trace_id in attributes for linking to traces and APM metrics. SAMPLING: Use sample:"diverse" for error investigation (dedupes by message pattern), sample:"spread" for time distribution. TOKEN TIP: Use compact:true to reduce payload size (strips heavy fields) when querying large volumes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform
queryNoLog search query (Datadog syntax). Examples: "error", "service:my-service status:error", "error AND timeout"
keywordNoSimple text search - finds logs containing this text (grep-like). Merged with query using AND
patternNoRegex pattern to match in log message (grep -E style). Example: "ERROR.*timeout|connection refused"
fromNoStart time. Formats: ISO 8601, relative (30s, 15m, 2h, 7d), precise (3d@11:45:23, yesterday@14:00)
toNoEnd time. Same formats as "from". Example: from="3d@11:45:23" to="3d@12:55:34"
serviceNoFilter by service name
hostNoFilter by host
statusNoFilter by log status/level
indexesNoLog indexes to search
limitNoMaximum number of logs to return (default: 200)
sortNoSort order
sampleNoSampling mode: first (chronological, default), spread (evenly across time range), diverse (distinct message patterns)
compactNoStrip custom attributes for token efficiency. Keeps: id, timestamp, service, host, status, message (truncated), dd.trace_id, dd.span_id, pod_name, kube_namespace, kube_container_name, error info
groupByNoFields to group by (for aggregate)
computeNoCompute operations (for aggregate)
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses correlations with traces, sampling behavior, compact flag effects, and time range formats. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only or any potential side effects, though it is likely idempotent.

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?

The description is well-structured with sections (actions, filters, time ranges, CORRELATION, SAMPLING, TOKEN TIP). Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately concise given the complexity of the tool.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers most aspects: actions, filters, time ranges, sampling, and compact. However, it does not describe the output format or mention pagination (default limit is in schema). Given 16 parameters and no output schema, it is fairly complete but has minor gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: explaining grep-like filtering, time range syntax, sampling modes (diverse/spread/first), and compact stripping details. It also provides examples in the schema descriptions.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool searches Datadog logs with grep-like text filtering and lists actions (search/aggregate). It distinguishes from general siblings like traces or metrics, but does not differentiate from specific log-related siblings like logs_archives or logs_indexes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides guidance on actions, filters, time ranges, sampling modes, and the compact flag. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other log-related tools (e.g., logs_archives, logs_indexes), which are present in sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TANTIOPE/datadog-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server