Retrieve and search Datadog RUM events within a specified time range. Filter by query and limit results to analyze real user monitoring data.
Search and retrieve RUM events from Datadog
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | End time in epoch seconds | |
| from | Yes | Start time in epoch seconds | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of events to return. Default is 100. | |
| query | No | Datadog RUM query string |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Search and retrieve' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., format, data structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external data.
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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for an agent to use this data retrieval tool effectively in a real-world context.
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 the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a search operation, which is already suggested by the schema's 'query' parameter. This meets 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 clearly states the action ('Search and retrieve') and resource ('RUM events from Datadog'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rum_applications' or 'get_rum_grouped_event_count', which likely retrieve different types of RUM data, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.