Datadog MCP Server

get_monitor

Retrieve full details for a specific Datadog monitor by ID, including its query, message, thresholds, and options.

Instructions

Get full details for a specific Datadog monitor by ID, including query, message, thresholds, and options.

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`monitorId`	Yes	The monitor ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' plus the field list makes the read-only, retrieval nature reasonably clear, but it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, error behavior for invalid IDs, or rate limits relevant to the Datadog API.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key noun (monitor) and the lookup key (ID) plus the returned payload are all stated up front.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields (query, message, thresholds, options) usefully previews the response shape. Only the ID-acquisition path and error semantics are left uncovered, which are minor for this complexity level.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents monitorId. The description's 'by ID' adds no format, type, or range detail beyond the schema (e.g., whether IDs can be strings), so it does not compensate further.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Datadog monitor'), scoped to a single monitor by ID, and enumerates the returned payload (query, message, thresholds, options). This implicitly contrasts with list_monitors and search_monitors, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies usage when a monitor ID is already known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to list_monitors/search_monitors as the way to obtain an ID. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server