NewRelic MCP Server

Does 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 mentions the tool analyzes impact by comparing metrics before and after deployment, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles missing data, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place by stating the action and the benefit, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters or usage scenarios.

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?

Given the complexity of deployment impact analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, and error handling. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in providing a full context for the agent.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of entityGuid or deploymentTimestamp in the context of impact analysis. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('analyze', 'compare') and resources ('deployment', 'metrics'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on deployment impact analysis rather than logs, metrics, or queries. It specifies the metrics involved: error rate, throughput, and response time.

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?

The description implies usage for identifying performance degradation after deployments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_entity_logs or analyze_golden_metrics. It provides some context ('Helps identify if a deployment caused performance degradation') but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.