Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

GetIncidentType

Retrieve detailed incident type information by specifying the incident type UUID. Supports JSON responses for success, errors, and validation issues via Datadog MCP Server integration.

Instructions

Get incident type details.

Path Parameters:

  • incident_type_id (Required): The UUID of the incident type.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): OK

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

    • Example:

{
  "data": "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_type_idYesThe UUID of the incident type.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions HTTP responses (e.g., 200, 400, 401, 403, 404, 429) which imply error handling and rate limiting, but doesn't explicitly state behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. The response examples are generic ('Bad Request' for multiple codes), adding limited value.

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 with extensive HTTP response details that are redundant or generic (e.g., repeated 'Bad Request' examples for multiple error codes). It's not front-loaded; the core purpose is stated briefly, followed by bloated response documentation that doesn't efficiently convey necessary information.

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 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage and an output schema implied by the 200 response example, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on authentication, error specifics, or sibling differentiation, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a read tool with no annotations.

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 the parameter 'incident_type_id' documented as 'The UUID of the incident type' in both the schema and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensation.

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 type details' which clearly indicates a read operation on incident types, but it's vague about what specific details are retrieved. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentTypes' beyond the resource name, lacking specificity about scope or verb distinction.

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 such as 'ListIncidentTypes' or 'GetIncident'. The description only describes the tool's function without context for selection among related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage 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