Skip to content

fix(mcp): remove status from dd_incidents_update, add needs_wrench_bot_check#17

Merged
Kydoimos97 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/update-remove-status-add-nwbc
Jun 10, 2026
Merged

fix(mcp): remove status from dd_incidents_update, add needs_wrench_bot_check#17
Kydoimos97 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/update-remove-status-add-nwbc

Conversation

@Kydoimos97

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

  • Removes the misleading implication that dd_incidents_update can change incident status — it cannot, the Datadog API ignores status on the update endpoint
  • Fixes two docstrings that incorrectly directed callers to use dd_incidents_update for status transitions (dd_incidents_create and dd_incidents_delete)
  • Adds explicit warning to dd_incidents_update docstring: use dd_incidents_set_status for status changes
  • Wires needs_wrench_bot_check into dd_incidents_update MCP tool (matching the CLI flag added in v0.9.12)
  • Expands arg descriptions in dd_incidents_update to be actionable rather than restating the param name
  • Adds NeedsWrenchBotCheck to the field list in dd_incidents_get docstring

Root cause

dd_incidents_update had a status param in older versions (and in confusing docstrings) that silently had no effect. The dedicated dd_incidents_set_status tool exists precisely because the Datadog v2 API separates status transitions from field updates. This PR aligns the documentation with that reality.

Test plan

  • uv run pytest tests/ -m "not integration" -q — 561 passed

End-user impact

AI agents calling dd_incidents_update(status="resolved") will now see clear documentation that this does nothing and they need dd_incidents_set_status instead. Eliminates silent no-ops where status appears to be set but isn't.

…t_check

dd_incidents_update accepted a status param that silently did nothing —
the Datadog API ignores status on the incident update endpoint. Callers
must use dd_incidents_set_status instead.

Changes:
- Add explicit docstring warning in dd_incidents_update that status must
  go through dd_incidents_set_status
- Fix two misleading docstrings that told callers to use dd_incidents_update
  for status transitions (dd_incidents_create and dd_incidents_delete)
- Add needs_wrench_bot_check param to dd_incidents_update MCP tool,
  matching the CLI flag added in v0.9.12
- Expand arg descriptions in dd_incidents_update to be actionable rather
  than just restating the param name
- Mention NeedsWrenchBotCheck in dd_incidents_get field list
@Kydoimos97 Kydoimos97 requested review from a team, Wrench-Service-Bot and Copilot and removed request for Copilot June 10, 2026 19:04
@Kydoimos97 Kydoimos97 merged commit efd2a88 into main Jun 10, 2026
10 checks passed

@Wrench-Service-Bot Wrench-Service-Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

PR Review

Verdict: APPROVED

Description

Corrects three misleading docstrings that directed callers to use dd_incidents_update for status transitions (which silently does nothing), and wires the needs_wrench_bot_check field into the MCP tool to match the CLI flag added in v0.9.12.

Highlights

  • The dd_incidents_delete fix is the highest-impact change: the old docstring explicitly told callers dd_incidents_update(status='resolved') was how to close an incident — a silent no-op that would leave incidents stuck open.
  • The dd_incidents_create docstring fix closes the same footgun in the creation flow.
  • needs_wrench_bot_check passthrough follows the existing is_duplicate / triage_completed pattern exactly.
  • Arg descriptions are now actionable rather than restating the param name — a clear improvement for AI consumers of this tool.

Style Notes

  • None

Overall Assessment

Clean, targeted fix with no risk of regression. The docstring corrections align with the documented behavior of the Datadog v2 API (status transitions require a separate endpoint). Ready to merge.

Sources

  • Diff: 1 file, +22/-15
  • Prior reviews: none
  • Related PRs/issues: N/A

— Claude

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants