Mute alerts from a Datadog host by hostname, optionally setting an end time, message, and override to replace an existing mute.
Mute a host in Datadog
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | POSIX timestamp for when the mute should end | |
| message | No | Message to associate with the muting of this host | |
| hostname | Yes | The name of the host to mute | |
| override | No | If true and the host is already muted, replaces existing end time |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but not what muting actually does (e.g., suppressing alerts/notifications), whether it requires permissions, how long it lasts by default, or whether it is reversible.
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 single front-loaded sentence is efficient and contains no filler. However, its extreme brevity leaves behavioral gaps that make it feel under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the effect of muting, default duration behavior, and the role of 'override'. It does not, leaving the agent dependent on parameter names alone.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb ('Mute') and resource ('a host'), so the basic action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'unmute_host' or explain what muting entails, but the purpose is clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'unmute_host' or 'schedule_downtime', nor any preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.