Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

GetSecurityFilter

Retrieve details of a specific security filter using its ID to configure and manage security settings within Datadog's monitoring platform.

Instructions

Get the details of a specific security filter.

See the security filter guide for more examples.

Path Parameters:

  • security_filter_id (Required): The ID of the security filter.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): OK

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

    • Example:

{
  "data": "unknown_type",
  "meta": "unknown_type"
}
  • 403: Not Authorized

    • 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
security_filter_idYesThe ID of the security filter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
metaNo
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions HTTP responses (200, 403, 404, 429) with error examples, which adds some context on failure modes. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what 'details' include, leaving gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive security data.

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 includes extensive, repetitive HTTP response details that could be condensed. The link to external documentation is useful, but the response examples are verbose and similar across error codes, reducing efficiency. It could be more streamlined while retaining essential 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 the tool has an output schema (implied by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the basic purpose and error responses but lacks context on security implications, usage scenarios, or integration with sibling tools. For a security-related tool with no annotations, this is 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'security_filter_id' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats this parameter info in a 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 the details of a specific security filter.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('security filter'), making the action explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListSecurityFilters' or 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule', which reduces clarity in a crowded context.

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 mentions a security filter guide for examples but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'ListSecurityFilters' for listing multiple filters. This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.

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