NewRelic MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'investigating issues' which implies a read-only analysis function, but doesn't specify whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, or what format/logic the analysis follows. The description is too vague about behavioral traits.

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 concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage guidelines.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks details about behavioral characteristics, output format, error conditions, or how this tool differs from similar siblings like 'query_logs'. Given the complexity of log analysis, more completeness would be helpful.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples beyond what's in the schema, or clarify semantic relationships between parameters like 'sinceMinutesAgo' and 'limit'.

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: 'Analyze logs for a specific NewRelic entity by GUID' with the specific verb 'analyze' and resource 'logs'. It distinguishes the tool by specifying it's for a 'specific entity' rather than general log analysis, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_logs' or 'list_recent_logs'.

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 provides implied usage context: 'Use this to investigate issues with a particular service, application, or infrastructure component.' This suggests when the tool is appropriate, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'query_logs' or 'list_recent_logs' that might serve similar purposes.

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