dynatrace_verify_dqlParse and verify DQL statements without executing them, so you can catch syntax errors before running queries against Grail storage.
Parse/verify a DQL statement without executing it against Grail storage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dql | Yes | ||
| connection | No | Named connection from env (default, optional stage/prod aliases, or a DYNATRACE_CONNECTIONS key) |
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, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: no execution against Grail, so no query cost or data mutation. However, it says nothing about what verification actually reports (syntax vs. semantic errors), whether auth/connection is required, or whether it consumes the Grail budget.
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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and immediately states the key constraint. No filler, no redundancy.
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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is minimally adequate: it establishes scope and the non-executing behavior. It omits what a failed verification returns and whether the optional connection affects parsing, leaving an agent with reasonable but incomplete expectations.
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 coverage is 50%: 'connection' is documented in the schema, but the required 'dql' parameter has no description. The tool description adds no format, length, or syntax guidance for the statement beyond the bare phrase 'a DQL statement', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (parse/verify) and resource (DQL statement), and the qualifier 'without executing it against Grail storage' implicitly separates it from dynatrace_execute_dql. It never names the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the pairing from the phrase rather than being told.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight validation step before dynatrace_execute_dql, but the description never says 'use this before executing' or names any alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.