Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

ListIncidentTeams

Retrieve all incident teams for your organization, with optional inclusion of related users. Filter teams by name and manage pagination for efficient data handling.

Instructions

Get all incident teams for the requesting user's organization. If the include[users] query parameter is provided, the included attribute will contain the users related to these incident teams.

Query Parameters:

  • include: Specifies which types of related objects should be included in the response.

  • page[size]: Size for a given page. The maximum allowed value is 100.

  • page[offset]: Specific offset to use as the beginning of the returned page.

  • filter: A search query that filters teams by name.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): OK

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • data: An array of incident teams.

      • included: Included related resources which the user requested.

    • Example:

{
  "data": [
    {
      "attributes": {
        "name": "team name"
      },
      "id": "00000000-7ea3-0000-0000-000000000000",
      "type": "teams"
    }
  ],
  "included": [
    "unknown_type"
  ],
  "meta": "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
filterNoA search query that filters teams by name.
includeNoObject related to an incident.
page[offset]NoSpecific offset to use as the beginning of the returned page.
page[size]NoSize for a given page. The maximum allowed value is 100.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesAn array of incident teams.
metaNo
includedNoIncluded related resources which the user requested.
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. It mentions pagination parameters and filtering, and includes HTTP response codes with examples, which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling specifics beyond status codes. The response examples are generic ('unknown_type'), limiting usefulness.

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 becomes verbose with detailed parameter and response sections that largely duplicate the schema. While structured, it includes redundant information (e.g., repeating parameter descriptions) and lengthy HTTP response examples with generic placeholders ('unknown_type'), which add bulk without proportional value. It could be more concise by focusing on unique insights.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters, and the output schema handles return values, reducing the need for detailed response explanations. However, it lacks behavioral context like authentication, rate limits, and error handling specifics, which are important for a tool with no annotations. The generic response examples limit completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats the 'filter' parameter's purpose and mentions the 'include' effect on the response, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding.

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 all incident teams for the requesting user's organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('incident teams'), and the scope ('for the requesting user's organization') is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncidentTeam' (singular) or 'ListIncidentServices', which might have similar listing patterns but for different resources.

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 an optional 'include[users]' parameter effect but doesn't compare to other listing tools (e.g., 'ListIncidentServices' for services instead of teams) or explain prerequisites like authentication needs. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations.

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