Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Datadog MCP Server

Datadog MCP Server

by dreamiurg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get-service-definition

Get a service definition from the Datadog Service Catalog by name to view details, ownership, and schema version.

Instructions

Get a single service definition by name from the Service Catalog. Use for 'show service X details', 'what team owns service Y', 'service definition for Z'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "serviceName": "<serviceName>"
    },
    "name": "get-service-definition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceNameYesThe service name to look up
schemaVersionNoSchema version: v1, v2, v2.1, or v2.2

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.11.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (getting a definition) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It is minimally adequate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise: one sentence plus example phrases. Every part is useful, no wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the return value structure. While the tool is simple, a mention of the response format would improve 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description and schema both describe 'serviceName' and 'schemaVersion' clearly, but the description adds no extra meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it gets a single service definition by name, with example queries like 'show service X details' and 'what team owns service Y'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'list-service-definitions' which would list all.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit use cases ('Use for...'), giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the examples imply appropriate scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools