Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

GetIncidentTodo

Retrieve specific incident todo details by providing the UUIDs for the incident and todo. Integrates with Datadog MCP Server for efficient incident management and observability tasks.

Instructions

Get incident todo details.

Path Parameters:

  • incident_id (Required): The UUID of the incident.

  • todo_id (Required): The UUID of the incident todo.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): OK

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • included: Included related resources that the user requested.

    • 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
incident_idYesThe UUID of the incident.
todo_idYesThe UUID of the incident todo.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
includedNoIncluded related resources that the user requested.
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only minimally describes behavior. It mentions HTTP response codes and error formats, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'included' resources entail. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 poorly structured and verbose. It wastes space repeating parameter details already in the schema and includes extensive HTTP response documentation that belongs in an output schema. The core purpose is buried under unnecessary technical details, making it inefficient and hard to parse.

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 has an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a simple 2-parameter retrieval tool, the description provides basic error handling context but misses behavioral details like authentication or rate limiting, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter definitions verbatim without adding any additional semantic context, such as format examples or relationship between incident_id and todo_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'Get incident todo details' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation for a specific resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentTodos' beyond mentioning 'todo details', making the purpose somewhat vague about what distinguishes this specific get operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentTodos'. The description only lists parameters and responses without contextual usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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