Retrieve Datadog dashboards with optional title search filtering, plus count and offset controls, to browse or locate dashboards for monitoring and analysis.
List Datadog dashboards with optional search filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Max dashboards to return | |
| query | No | Search query to filter dashboards by title | |
| start | No | Starting offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite start/count parameters, nor about permissions or result limits. A read tool with pagination params that never mentions paging is a meaningful transparency gap.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It earns its place, though it is arguably too terse given the pagination parameters left unaddressed.
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?
For a simple list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. However, the pagination contract (start/count defaults) and the distinction from get_dashboard are left entirely to inference, so it is not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (count, query, start) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'optional search filtering' loosely echoes the query param but adds no format, syntax, or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List Datadog dashboards') and adds scope via 'optional search filtering.' It is distinguishable from the get_dashboard sibling by virtue of the list verb, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with 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?
No when-to-use guidance beyond the implied 'listing' semantics. It does not mention when to prefer get_dashboard for a single dashboard or how it relates to other list/search tools in the same namespace. The word 'optional' hints that filtering is not required but no conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.