Retrieve and manage Datadog incidents with pagination controls to monitor and respond to system events.
Get incidents from Datadog
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_incidents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | ||
| pageOffset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get incidents' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, paginated, or has rate limits. The description lacks details on return format, error handling, or any constraints beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Get incidents from Datadog'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by stating the core action and resource.
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 (list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'incidents' entail, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured guidance, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the two parameters (pageSize, pageOffset) are undocumented in both schema and description. However, the baseline is 3 since the description doesn't need to compensate heavily for a simple list tool with only pagination parameters, but it offers no extra meaning.
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 'Get incidents from Datadog' states the basic action (get) and resource (incidents from Datadog), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about scope (all incidents? filtered?) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_incident' (singular vs. plural). It's not tautological but lacks specificity.
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 'get_incident' (for a single incident) or 'list_dashboards' (for other resources), nor does it specify contexts or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the name 'list_incidents'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.