Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

GetHistoricalCostByOrg

Retrieve historical cost data for multi-org or single root-org accounts in Datadog MCP. Specify time range and view to analyze costs at parent-org or sub-org levels. Includes options for connected accounts.

Instructions

Get historical cost across multi-org and single root-org accounts. Cost data for a given month becomes available no later than the 16th of the following month.

This endpoint is only accessible for parent-level organizations.

Query Parameters:

  • view: String to specify whether cost is broken down at a parent-org level or at the sub-org level. Available views are summary and sub-org. Defaults to summary.

  • start_month (Required): Datetime in ISO-8601 format, UTC, precise to month: [YYYY-MM] for cost beginning this month.

  • end_month: Datetime in ISO-8601 format, UTC, precise to month: [YYYY-MM] for cost ending this month.

  • include_connected_accounts: Boolean to specify whether to include accounts connected to the current account as partner customers in the Datadog partner network program. Defaults to false.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): OK

    • Content-Type: application/json;datetime-format=rfc3339

    • Response Properties:

      • data: Response containing Chargeback Summary.

    • Example:

{
  "data": [
    "unknown_type"
  ]
}
  • 400: Bad Request

    • Content-Type: application/json;datetime-format=rfc3339

    • Response Properties:

      • errors: A list of errors.

    • Example:

{
  "errors": [
    "Bad Request"
  ]
}
  • 403: Forbidden - User is not authorized

    • Content-Type: application/json;datetime-format=rfc3339

    • Response Properties:

      • errors: A list of errors.

    • Example:

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

    • Content-Type: application/json;datetime-format=rfc3339

    • Response Properties:

      • errors: A list of errors.

    • Example:

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_monthNoDatetime in ISO-8601 format, UTC, precise to month: `[YYYY-MM]` for cost ending this month.
include_connected_accountsNoBoolean to specify whether to include accounts connected to the current account as partner customers in the Datadog partner network program. Defaults to `false`.
start_monthYesDatetime in ISO-8601 format, UTC, precise to month: `[YYYY-MM]` for cost beginning this month.
viewNoString to specify whether cost is broken down at a parent-org level or at the sub-org level. Available views are `summary` and `sub-org`. Defaults to `summary`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoResponse containing Chargeback Summary.
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the availability timeline for cost data (by the 16th of the following month) and access restrictions (parent-level organizations only). It also mentions rate limits implicitly through the 429 error response. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, potential side effects, or response format beyond the basic examples, leaving some gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and key guidelines, but it includes extensive, redundant parameter details and response examples that duplicate information from the schema. The 'Query Parameters' and 'Responses' sections are verbose and could be trimmed, as they don't add value beyond structured fields. While not overly long, it lacks efficiency, with sentences that don't all earn their place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (historical cost retrieval with multiple parameters), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, parameters (though redundant), and error responses. Since an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it could better integrate with sibling tools and provide more behavioral context, but it's adequate for the task.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents all parameters. The description repeats the parameter details verbatim in the 'Query Parameters' section, adding no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no extra param info in the description.

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 historical cost across multi-org and single root-org accounts.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical cost'), and distinguishes the scope ('multi-org and single root-org accounts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetCostByOrg' or 'GetEstimatedCostByOrg', which appear related, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it specifies that cost data becomes available by the 16th of the following month and that it's only accessible for parent-level organizations, with a link to documentation. This gives practical constraints and prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'GetCostByOrg' or 'GetEstimatedCostByOrg', so it falls short of a perfect score.

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