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 mentions HTTP response codes (200, 403, 404, 429) and error formats, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what 'tag configuration' entails (e.g., structure, format). The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 purpose, but it includes extensive HTTP response details that may be redundant if an output schema exists. The structure is clear but verbose for a tool with one parameter and good schema coverage. Some sentences (e.g., repeated error examples) don't earn their place in a concise description.

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 the tool's complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema likely present), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, and error responses. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., what 'tag configuration' returns), which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'metric_name' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats 'The name of the metric' but adds no extra meaning (e.g., format examples, constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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: 'Returns the tag configuration for the given metric name.' This is a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('tag configuration'), and the metric_name parameter is mentioned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListTagConfigurations' or 'ListTagsByMetricName', which appear related but have different scopes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListTagConfigurations' or 'ListTagsByMetricName', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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