Create a New Relic alert policy to specify incident grouping preferences and enable efficient alert management for your monitored systems.
Create a new alert policy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the alert policy | |
| incident_preference | No | How incidents are created (PER_POLICY, PER_CONDITION, PER_CONDITION_AND_TARGET) | PER_POLICY |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states that a policy is created. It does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, duplicate-name behavior, whether the creation is immediately effective, or whether additional configuration steps are needed after creation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise, though it is so terse that it contributes minimal information beyond the schema and tool name.
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 simple create operation with only two parameters and full schema coverage, the description plus schema is minimally viable. However, the absence of an output schema and any behavioral context means the agent is left guessing about return values, uniqueness rules, and the relationship between alert policies and alert conditions.
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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline 3 for complete 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 identifies the action (Create) and the resource (alert policy), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that operate on dashboards, NRQL conditions, or workflows. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no detail about what an alert policy actually contains or how it differs from related alert-condition tools.
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 create_alert_policy versus alternatives such as create_nrql_condition or create_workflow. The description does not mention prerequisites, relationships to other resources, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.