Skip to main content
Glama
brukhabtu

Datadog MCP Server

by brukhabtu

ListSecurityMonitoringRules

Retrieve and manage security monitoring rules on the Datadog observability platform by using pagination parameters to filter and organize rule lists effectively.

Instructions

List rules.

Query Parameters:

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

  • page[number]: Specific page number to return.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): OK

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • data: Array containing the list of rules.

    • 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"
  ]
}
  • 429: Too many requests

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • errors: A list of errors.

    • Example:

{
  "errors": [
    "Bad Request"
  ]
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page[number]NoSpecific page number to return.
page[size]NoSize for a given page. The maximum allowed value is 100.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoArray containing the list of rules.
metaNo

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of security monitoring tools via OpenAPI route filtering whitelist. The pattern r"^/api/v2/security_monitoring.*" enables the ListSecurityMonitoringRules tool (GET /api/v2/security_monitoring/rules) through FastMCP's dynamic OpenAPI tool generation.
    def _get_route_filters(self) -> list[RouteMap]:
        """Get route filtering rules for safe observability-focused tools.
    
        Security Model:
        1. DENY ALL destructive operations (POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE)
        2. ALLOW ONLY specific read-only GET endpoints
        3. DEFAULT DENY everything else
    
        This whitelist approach ensures only safe, read-only operations
        are exposed through the MCP interface.
        """
        # Define safe read-only endpoints for observability workflows
        safe_endpoints = [
            # Metrics and time-series data
            r"^/api/v2/metrics.*",  # Query metrics data
            r"^/api/v2/query/.*",  # Time-series queries
            # Dashboards and visualizations
            r"^/api/v2/dashboards.*",  # Dashboard configurations
            r"^/api/v2/notebooks.*",  # Notebook data
            # Monitoring and alerts
            r"^/api/v2/monitors.*",  # Monitor configurations
            r"^/api/v2/downtime.*",  # Scheduled downtimes
            r"^/api/v2/synthetics.*",  # Synthetic tests
            # Logs and events
            r"^/api/v2/logs/events/search$",  # Search logs
            r"^/api/v2/logs/events$",  # List log events
            r"^/api/v2/logs/config.*",  # Log pipeline configs
            # APM and traces
            r"^/api/v2/apm/.*",  # APM data
            r"^/api/v2/traces/.*",  # Trace data
            r"^/api/v2/spans/.*",  # Span data
            # Infrastructure
            r"^/api/v2/hosts.*",  # Host information
            r"^/api/v2/tags.*",  # Tag management (read)
            r"^/api/v2/usage.*",  # Usage statistics
            # Service management
            r"^/api/v2/services.*",  # Service catalog
            r"^/api/v2/slos.*",  # Service level objectives
            r"^/api/v2/incidents.*",  # Incident management
            # Security and compliance
            r"^/api/v2/security_monitoring.*",  # Security signals
            r"^/api/v2/cloud_workload_security.*",  # CWS data
            # Teams and organization (read-only)
            r"^/api/v2/users.*",  # User information
            r"^/api/v2/roles.*",  # Role information
            r"^/api/v2/teams.*",  # Team structure
            # API metadata
            r"^/api/v2/api_keys$",  # List API keys (no create/delete)
            r"^/api/v2/application_keys$",  # List app keys (no create/delete)
        ]
    
        filters = [
            # SECURITY: Block ALL destructive operations first
            RouteMap(
                methods=["POST", "PUT", "PATCH", "DELETE"], mcp_type=MCPType.EXCLUDE
            ),
        ]
    
        # Add whitelisted read-only endpoints
        filters.extend(
            RouteMap(
                pattern=pattern,
                methods=["GET"],
                mcp_type=MCPType.TOOL,
            )
            for pattern in safe_endpoints
        )
    
        # SECURITY: Default deny everything else
        filters.append(RouteMap(pattern=r".*", mcp_type=MCPType.EXCLUDE))
    
        return filters
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination parameters and HTTP response codes (200, 400, 429) with examples, which adds some behavioral context about success/error handling and rate limiting. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, performance characteristics, or what happens when no rules exist. The response examples show 'unknown_type' which is unhelpful.

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 structured with sections for query parameters and responses, but it's inefficiently long due to redundant parameter documentation and verbose HTTP response examples with unhelpful 'unknown_type' placeholders. The core purpose ('List rules') is overly brief, while the response documentation adds bulk without corresponding value. The structure is logical but not optimally concise.

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 that an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a listing tool with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, the description should provide more context about what 'rules' means and how this tool fits into the broader API. The HTTP response documentation adds some completeness but with low-quality examples. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in contextual guidance.

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%, with both parameters ('page[size]' and 'page[number]') fully documented in the schema with descriptions, examples, defaults, and constraints. The description repeats this same parameter information verbatim, adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description begins with 'List rules' which is a tautology of the tool name 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules'. While it's clear this is a listing operation, it doesn't specify what type of rules (security monitoring rules) or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule' or 'ListSecurityMonitoringSignals'. The description lacks specificity about the resource being listed.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule' (for retrieving a single rule) or 'ListSecurityMonitoringSignals' (for listing signals). No context is provided about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this listing operation is appropriate versus other listing tools in the sibling set.

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