MCP Datadog Server

get_monitor_status

Retrieve the current status of a Datadog monitor, including alert state, active downtime, and historical changes.

Instructions

Get detailed status information for a specific monitor, including alert status, downtime information, and historical state changes.

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": {
      "monitorId": "<monitorId>"
    },
    "name": "get_monitor_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`monitorId`	Yes	Unique identifier of the monitor

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes alert status, downtime, and historical state changes, which adds insight beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, failure behavior, or the exact response format, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes valuable specifics without any fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, so the description is largely responsible for conveying what the agent can expect. It covers the key data points (alert status, downtime, historical state changes), which is sufficient for a straightforward status retrieval tool, though a brief note on response shape would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter monitorId with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond implying the monitor must be identified, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'status information for a specific monitor'. It also lists concrete details (alert status, downtime information, historical state changes), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_monitors or search_monitors.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you need detailed status for a single monitor (as opposed to listing or searching monitors), and the 'specific monitor' wording signals that a monitorId is required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related needs.

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

Deploy Server