Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Datadog MCP Server

Datadog MCP Server

by dreamiurg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list-posture-findings

Retrieve CSPM/CIEM posture findings to identify misconfigurations and identity risks for compliance audits.

Instructions

List legacy CSPM/CIEM posture management findings (misconfigurations and identity risks). Useful for compliance use-cases. Requires the security_monitoring_findings_read scope.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list-posture-findings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterNo
pageNo
snapshotTimestampNo
detailedFindingsNo
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.11.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the required scope and that findings are 'legacy'. Does not mention pagination, rate limits, idempotency, or error scenarios, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and a requirement. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested filter object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks details on filtering options, pagination, output format, and behavioral implications, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (filter, page, snapshotTimestamp, detailedFindings, limit). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema structure.

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?

Clearly states it lists legacy CSPM/CIEM findings (misconfigurations and identity risks) and mentions compliance use-cases. Differentiates from siblings like 'search-security-findings' by implying this is a list operation, but does not explicitly contrast.

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?

Only provides vague usage advice ('useful for compliance use-cases') and a scope requirement. No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., 'search-security-findings'), no when-not-to-use, and no prerequisites beyond the scope.

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