Retrieve full details of a specific Datadog incident by its ID to investigate status, impact, and timeline through read-only API access.
Get full details of a specific Datadog incident by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incidentId | Yes | The incident ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval and 'full details' signals return completeness, but it does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior for invalid IDs, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read tool but not rich.
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?
One sentence with zero waste, and the key information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with one fully documented input parameter and no output schema. 'Full details' gives a general sense of the return, but without an output schema the description could clarify what details are returned. It is sufficient to call correctly but leaves minor gaps.
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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description repeats 'by ID' but adds no extra meaning such as ID format or constraints; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb (Get), resource (Datadog incident), and scope (full details by ID). It clearly differentiates from list_incidents by emphasizing a specific incident, though it does not explicitly name siblings.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you have an incident ID and need full details. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as list_incidents, so the guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.