Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

GetIncidentTeam

Retrieve details of an incident team, including related users, by specifying the team ID and optional inclusion parameters.

Instructions

Get details of an incident team. If the include[users] query parameter is provided, the included attribute will contain the users related to these incident teams.

Path Parameters:

  • team_id (Required): The ID of the incident team.

Query Parameters:

  • include: Specifies which types of related objects should be included in the response.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): OK

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • included: Included objects from relationships.

    • Example:

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

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • errors: A list of errors.

    • Example:

{
  "errors": [
    "Bad Request"
  ]
}
  • 401: Unauthorized

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • errors: A list of errors.

    • Example:

{
  "errors": [
    "Bad Request"
  ]
}
  • 403: Forbidden

    • 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
includeNoObject related to an incident.
team_idYesThe ID of the incident team.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
includedNoIncluded objects from relationships.
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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't address permissions (e.g., auth needs hinted by 401/403 responses), rate limits (429 response), or error handling specifics. The HTTP response codes are listed but not explained in practical terms, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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 core purpose, but it's bloated by extensive HTTP response documentation (e.g., multiple error codes with repetitive examples) that adds little value beyond what an agent might infer from standard API patterns. This reduces efficiency, though the initial sentence is clear.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description is partially complete. It lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral details, but the presence of an output schema (implied by response documentation) reduces the need to explain return values. However, without annotations, it should do more to cover permissions and error handling nuances.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('team_id' and 'include') with descriptions and enum values. The description adds minimal value by noting that 'include[users]' adds related users, but this is redundant with the schema's enum. It doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or usage examples beyond what's in the structured data.

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 details of an incident team.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('incident team'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentTeams,' 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that including the 'include' parameter adds related users, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ListIncidentTeams' for multiple teams or 'GetIncident' for broader incident details). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent without clear context for selection.

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