Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

ListArchiveReadRoles

Retrieve all read roles assigned to a specific archive on the Datadog MCP Server by providing the archive ID, ensuring role-based access control verification.

Instructions

Returns all read roles a given archive is restricted to.

Path Parameters:

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

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): OK

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • data: Array of returned roles.

    • Example:

{
  "data": [
    "unknown_type"
  ],
  "meta": "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
dataNoArray of returned roles.
metaNo
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 (200, 400, 403, 404, 429) and error formats, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 includes extensive HTTP response details that belong in an output schema or annotations, not in the description. The core purpose is stated upfront, but the bulk of the text is redundant or misaligned with MCP best practices, making it inefficient and cluttered.

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 the response details) and 100% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and error handling, but lacks context on authentication, rate limits, and sibling differentiation. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema fully documenting the single required parameter 'archive_id'. The description repeats this parameter information in a 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationship to other parameters). This meets the baseline score of 3 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: 'Returns all read roles a given archive is restricted to.' This specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('read roles'), and scope ('a given archive is restricted to'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListRoles' or 'ListRolePermissions', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), context for when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from similar tools like 'ListRoles' or 'GetRole' in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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