Datadog (PyPI) MCP Server

datadog-mcp PyPI v0.3.3

Published by an unidentified publisher — no publish provenance and no public repository, so the publisher could not be verified and the source cannot be independently located.

Datadog MCP server

Trust grade
A
95/100
Last scanned get badge →
Trust
A · 95/100
Adoption risk for you: the threat score, then adjusted down for blast radius, publisher verification and how much the scan could see. Deterministic; every point is auditable.
Capability
Moderate
Blast radius if it went rogue — what the server’s tools could reach. Independent of trust.
Coverage
Source
How much the scan could actually inspect. Shallow coverage is stated, never hidden.
Share this Trust Score
𝕏 Share LinkedIn Reddit
A Why this grade threat 100 − adoption risk = 95/100

The grade answers one question — how safe is this server for you to adopt — so it is computed in two auditable stages. Nothing below is an opinion or an LLM's guess; every line is a real term the deterministic engine applied, and the same input always yields the same number.

1. Threat score — 100 − 0 = 100. What the published surface and source actually contain:

The deterministic scan raised no scored threat in the surface it inspected — the threat score stayed at 100. Capability observations and advisory notes are recorded but never lower it.

2. Client adoption risk — 100 − 5 = 95. Three small, subtract-only factors that reflect your risk in adopting it — a clean scan proves less on a powerful, unverified or barely-inspectable package, so the grade says so plainly:

PointsAdoption-risk factor
−3 capability blast radius (moderate) — client exposure if the model is manipulated
−2 publisher verification (unlinked) — no provenance/repo link, but the shipped source was fully read

Capability observations and info notes are shown under Findings but never scored. Open any row's finding below for the file, line and evidence behind a deduction.

Findings 1

low Dynamic module load from a non-literal in packaging/dev tooling (tests/test_integration.py)MTC-SRC-005

In a packaging/dev/install script (shipped, but not the server runtime) (`tests/test_integration.py:231`): Loading a module chosen at runtime (from a variable) can pull in and run attacker-influenced code paths. This is read from the code itself — not from the tool description — so a poisoned server cannot hide it behind honest-looking metadata.

Evidence: s: module = __import__(f"datadog_mcp.tools.{module_name}", fromlist=[module_name]) # Each tool

Fix: Review this call path: confirm it never receives unsanitized tool input, constrain it, or remove it. Treat a server whose code reaches these sinks as high-capability regardless of what its tools claim.

Location: server tests/test_integration.py

Tools 28

Each tool and what it can reach — statically extracted from the published source.

  • get_logsreads sensitive data
  • get_logs_field_valuesreads sensitive data
  • add_notebook_cellno sensitive capability
  • aggregate_tracesno sensitive capability
  • check_deploymentno sensitive capability
  • create_monitorno sensitive capability
  • create_notebookno sensitive capability
  • delete_monitorno sensitive capability
  • delete_notebookno sensitive capability
  • delete_notebook_cellno sensitive capability
Show 18 more tools ↓
  • get_metric_field_valuesno sensitive capability
  • get_metric_fieldsno sensitive capability
  • get_metricsno sensitive capability
  • get_monitorno sensitive capability
  • get_notebookno sensitive capability
  • get_service_definitionno sensitive capability
  • get_teamsno sensitive capability
  • get_tracesno sensitive capability
  • list_metricsno sensitive capability
  • list_monitorsno sensitive capability
  • list_notebooksno sensitive capability
  • list_service_definitionsno sensitive capability
  • list_slosno sensitive capability
  • query_metric_formulano sensitive capability
  • setup_authno sensitive capability
  • update_monitorno sensitive capability
  • update_notebookno sensitive capability
  • update_notebook_cellno sensitive capability

What this scan could not see

Versions 1

Scan history per published version. The engine is deterministic — the same version always yields the same score, so a changed score means the package itself changed.

VersionScoreFindingsEngineScanned
v0.3.3 latest A 95/100 1 1.13.0 2026-08-25

Embed this score

Show this server's live Trust Score in your README, docs or website. The badge is served straight from the registry and updates automatically after every rescan — no API key needed. It links back to this page, so anyone who sees the grade can also read the findings behind it instead of taking a number on faith.

MCP Trust Score: A · 95/100
Markdown (GitHub README)
[![MCP Trust Score](https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/datadog-mcp-2/badge.svg)](https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/datadog-mcp-2)
HTML
<a href="https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/datadog-mcp-2"><img src="https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/datadog-mcp-2/badge.svg" alt="MCP Trust Score" height="20"></a>
Prefer shields.io styling? Point it at https://mcptrustchecker.com/registry/datadog-mcp-2/badge.json via https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=…

Verify this score yourself

The score above is reproducible: the same package version always yields the same result. Run it locally or over the free API — no account, no LLM, fully deterministic.

npx mcptrustchecker scan datadog-mcp --online --registry pypi

Use the free API → How scoring works

Other implementations of Datadog 12

Independent packages implementing the same tool, scanned with the same engine. Compare all 13 side by side →

More in Developer Tools