NewRelic MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the report provides 'actionable recommendations' but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how long it takes to generate, or what format the output takes. For a tool that presumably analyzes and synthesizes data, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that convey the core functionality and value proposition. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second explains the output's purpose. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more specific about the report's format or delivery method.

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 that generates a comprehensive report with actionable recommendations, the description is insufficient given the lack of annotations and output schema. It doesn't explain what format the report takes (text, structured data, file), how recommendations are presented, or what 'comprehensive' entails. With no output schema and behavioral gaps, users can't understand what to expect from this tool.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3. It doesn't explain how 'entityGuid' affects report focus or how 'sinceDays' integrates with the 'recent deployments' mentioned.

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 generates a 'comprehensive alert insights report' that combines AI issues, error groups, and recent deployments, with actionable recommendations. It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('alert insights report'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recent_issues' or 'get_entity_error_groups' that might provide similar data components.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions what the report includes but doesn't specify scenarios where this comprehensive report is preferable to using individual sibling tools like 'list_recent_issues', 'get_entity_error_groups', or 'list_change_events' separately.

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