Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Datadog MCP Server

Datadog MCP Server

by peterlozano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_monitors

List Datadog monitors with optional filters by name, tags, status, or type to find specific monitors for investigation.

Instructions

List Datadog monitors with optional filtering by name, tags, status, or type.

Tool call template

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_monitors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoFilter monitors by name (substring match)
pageNoPage number (0-indexed)
tagsNoComma-separated tags to filter by. E.g. 'env:prod,team:backend'
typeNoFilter by monitor type (e.g. 'metric alert', 'service check')
statusNoFilter by monitor status
pageSizeNoResults per page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, rate limits, or what a listing returns. For a paginated list tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a real gap.

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 that states the resource and its filter surface with no filler or redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the filtering surface but omits pagination semantics, defaults, and any hint of the response shape. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to consult the schema for the rest.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (including page and pageSize) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List Datadog monitors') plus the filterable fields, so the purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools search_monitors or get_monitor, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It states that filtering is optional but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions when to prefer search_monitors or get_monitor over this tool. The agent must guess the intended scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools