Skip to main content
Glama
us-all

datadog-mcp-server

by us-all

create-slo

Create a new Datadog Service Level Objective (SLO) using monitor, metric, or time-slice types. Define name, thresholds, and optional tags to track service reliability.

Instructions

Create a new Service Level Objective (monitor-based, metric-based, or time-slice). Write-gated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSLO name
tagsNoTags. Example: ['env:prod', 'team:backend']
typeYesSLO type. 'monitor' uses linked monitors; 'metric' uses a numerator/denominator query; 'time_slice' uses time-slice SLI
queryNoRequired if type='metric'
monitorIdsNoRequired if type='monitor'. List of linked monitor IDs
thresholdsYesOne or more {target, timeframe, warning?} entries
descriptionNoSLO description
targetThresholdNoConvenience: target % (e.g. 99.9)
warningThresholdNoConvenience: warning %
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool requires write access ('Write-gated'), but does not explain what happens on success (return value, creation confirmation), side effects, or idempotency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key variation, no fluff. Efficient and clear.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given moderate complexity (nested objects, conditional requirements) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the return value or provide guidance on required parameter combinations, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., classification of types), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a new Service Level Objective' and lists the three types (monitor-based, metric-based, time-slice), effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like update-slo and delete-slo.

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 'Write-gated' hints at permission requirements, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor which SLO type to choose under different scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/us-all/datadog-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server