Skip to main content
Glama
piekstra

New Relic MCP Server

by piekstra

list_applications

Retrieve all APM applications from New Relic to monitor and manage application performance data.

Instructions

List all New Relic APM applications

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for list_applications. This function is decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration and executes the tool logic by calling the NewRelicClient's list_applications method and returning formatted JSON.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def list_applications() -> str:
        """List all New Relic APM applications"""
        if not client:
            return json.dumps({"error": "New Relic client not initialized"})
    
        try:
            result = await client.list_applications()
            return json.dumps(result, indent=2)
        except Exception as e:
            return json.dumps({"error": str(e)}, indent=2)
  • Core helper method in NewRelicClient that makes the HTTP GET request to New Relic API endpoint /applications.json to retrieve the list of applications.
    async def list_applications(self) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """List all New Relic APM applications"""
        url = f"{self.base_url}/applications.json"
        return await self._make_request("GET", url)
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns all applications at once, uses pagination, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, with no annotations and a list operation that might have behavioral nuances (e.g., pagination, scope), the description could benefit from additional context about how the listing works.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, which is correct for this case. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all New Relic APM applications'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_application' (singular) and 'search_entities' (broader scope), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing applications, or compare with siblings like 'search_entities' (which might offer filtering) or 'get_application' (for single applications). Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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/piekstra/newrelic-mcp-server'

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