Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

GetApmRetentionFilter

Retrieve an APM retention filter using its ID on the Datadog MCP Server. This tool enables access to filter data for application performance monitoring, ensuring effective observability and management.

Instructions

Get an APM retention filter.

Path Parameters:

  • filter_id (Required): The ID of the retention filter.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): OK

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

    • Example:

{
  "data": "unknown_type"
}
  • 403: Not Authorized

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • errors: A list of errors.

    • Example:

{
  "errors": [
    "Bad Request"
  ]
}
  • 404: Not Found

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • errors: A list of errors.

    • Example:

{
  "errors": [
    "Bad Request"
  ]
}
  • 429: Too many requests

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • errors: A list of errors.

    • Example:

{
  "errors": [
    "Bad Request"
  ]
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filter_idYesThe ID of the retention filter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
Behavior2/5

Does 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. It includes HTTP response codes (200, 403, 404, 429) and error formats, which adds some context on potential outcomes like authorization issues or rate limits. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limit specifics, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is overly verbose and poorly structured for its purpose. It includes extensive HTTP response details that are better suited for an output schema or annotations, cluttering the core description. The initial sentence is clear, but the subsequent sections add redundant information without enhancing usability, making it inefficient and not front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter), the description includes basic purpose and parameter info, and an output schema exists (implied by response examples), so it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and sufficient behavioral context, making it incomplete for optimal agent use despite the structured data support.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'filter_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the retention filter.' The description repeats this information in a 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get an APM retention filter.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('APM retention filter'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListApmRetentionFilters' or 'GetSecurityFilter', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListApmRetentionFilters' for listing filters or 'GetSecurityFilter' for similar retrieval operations, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a filter ID from a list operation. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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

Related 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/brukhabtu/datadog-mcp'

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