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 describes what the tool does (analyzes transactions with specific metrics and grouping) and hints at its read-only nature through terms like 'analyze' and 'query,' but doesn't explicitly state whether it's a read operation, its performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, explains the methodology, lists key parameters implicitly, and ends with use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, methodology, and use cases. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., read-only confirmation, response format) to fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'NRQL with FACET grouping' and listing example metrics and grouping attributes, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints not already in the schema descriptions.

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 transaction performance using NRQL with FACET grouping.' It specifies the exact event type ('Transaction'), the analysis method (NRQL with FACET), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'execute_nrql_query' (general query) or 'analyze_golden_metrics' (predefined metrics).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for identifying slow transactions, high-error endpoints, or traffic patterns.' It mentions specific use cases but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'execute_nrql_query' for custom queries or 'analyze_golden_metrics' for standard metrics.

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