NewRelic MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (metadata, tags, metrics) and hints at metric variability by entity type, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist).

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists return types. Every element (verb, resource, parameter, outputs) earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 read operation with 1 parameter (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states purpose, parameter context, and return content. However, without annotations or output schema, it could better address behavioral aspects like error cases or response structure.

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% (the 'guid' parameter is fully documented in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 specific action ('Retrieve detailed information'), target resource ('NewRelic entity by its GUID'), and output scope ('entity metadata, tags, and type-specific metrics'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_entity_with_tag' (search vs. retrieve by GUID) and 'list_related_entities' (list vs. retrieve single).

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 when you have a specific entity GUID and need detailed metrics, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'search_entity_with_tag' (for tag-based lookup) or 'list_related_entities' (for relationship exploration). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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