Datadog MCP Server

search-spans

Search APM spans and traces to find slow requests, errors, or latency issues using queries like 'service:web status:error @duration:>1s'. Returns individual spans with trace IDs for further investigation.

Instructions

Search APM spans/traces. Use for 'find slow requests', 'show errors in payment service', or investigating latency. Query syntax: 'service:web status:error @duration:>1s'. Returns individual spans with trace IDs. Use get-trace for full trace context.

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": "search-spans"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filter`	No
`sort`	No	Sort order ('timestamp' or '-timestamp')
`page`	No
`limit`	No	Maximum spans to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.11.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

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 states the tool returns 'individual spans with trace IDs', but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or that it is a read-only operation. More transparency would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, use cases, query syntax, output, and sibling reference. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns individual spans with trace IDs', which is helpful but not fully comprehensive. It properly references sibling tool 'get-trace' for context. Could include more about time range or pagination, but overall adequate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the query syntax with an example ('service:web status:error @duration:>1s'). This helps agents understand how to construct the query parameter beyond the schema's simple description.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search APM spans/traces'. It provides specific use cases like 'find slow requests' and 'show errors in payment service', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get-trace' by directing users to use that for full trace context.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance with example queries and use cases. It also provides an alternative: 'Use get-trace for full trace context', helping agents choose correctly.

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

Deploy Server