Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

GetLogsArchive

Retrieve a specific log archive by providing its unique archive ID, enabling access to stored data within the Datadog MCP Server for observability analysis.

Instructions

Get a specific archive from your organization.

Path Parameters:

  • archive_id (Required): The ID of the archive.

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"
  ]
}
  • 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
archive_idYesThe ID of the archive.

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. While it mentions HTTP response codes (e.g., 200, 400, 403, 404, 429), it doesn't explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., read-only, requires permissions, rate limits, or data format). The response examples are generic and don't clarify the actual data structure, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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. It front-loads the purpose but then includes extensive, redundant HTTP response details that clutter the description without adding value (e.g., repeating 'Bad Request' examples). This makes it harder to parse key information efficiently.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details (e.g., permissions, data format). The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but the description's response section is redundant and unhelpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'archive_id' fully documented in the input schema. The description repeats this information in a 'Path Parameters' section but doesn't add any meaningful context beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find archive IDs or format examples. This meets the baseline 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 a specific archive from your organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('archive'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ListLogsArchives', 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 the sibling 'ListLogsArchives' for browsing archives or clarify that this tool is for retrieving details of a single, known archive. Without this context, an AI agent might struggle to choose between this and list operations.

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