Datadog MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by detailing HTTP responses (200, 403, 429) and examples, which helps understand error handling and output format. However, it lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's read-only, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes extensive HTTP response details that may be redundant if an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'). This adds length without proportional value, though it's structured with clear sections.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides adequate context by explaining the tool's purpose and response behavior. However, with no annotations, it should ideally cover more behavioral aspects like safety or permissions to be fully complete for a listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on output and behavior instead, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get the list of configured logs archives with their definitions,' specifying the verb ('Get'), resource ('logs archives'), and scope ('configured' with 'definitions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetLogsArchive' (singular) and 'ListLogsGet' (general logs), but could be more explicit about differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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. While the description implies it's for listing archives, it doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare to siblings like 'GetLogsArchiveOrder' or 'ListLogsCustomDestinations' for related operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.