List datasources applied to an APM service to see which monitoring metrics are collected. Filter by datasource name and limit results for focused investigation.
List datasources applied to an APM service (e.g. LogicMonitor_APM_Services, _Operations)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| service_id | Yes | APM service device ID | |
| name_filter | No | Filter by datasource name (substring match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds scoping context (APM service) and example datasource names, but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical example adds useful specificity without unnecessary length or repetition.
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 read-only list operation with 3 well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not explain return value shape, but with no output schema present and a simple list operation, this is not a critical gap.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents service_id, limit, and name_filter. The description adds example datasource values but does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb-object pair ('List datasources applied to an APM service') and gives concrete example values. It clearly identifies the resource type and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_datasources or get_device_datasources.
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 context is implied by 'applied to an APM service,' which tells the agent this is for APM service datasources. However, the description does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.