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 grouping behavior ('Groups errors by class and message') and the goal ('identify the most frequent and impactful errors'), but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get error groups from TransactionError events') and adds useful context ('Groups errors by class and message to identify the most frequent and impactful errors'). Every part earns its place with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and grouping logic but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., data format, limitations) and usage context. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'entityGuid' or 'transactionName' usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Get error groups from TransactionError events' with specific grouping criteria ('by class and message') and goal ('identify the most frequent and impactful errors'). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('error groups'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recent_issues' or 'list_recent_logs' that might also handle errors.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_recent_issues' (which might show errors) or 'analyze_transactions' (which might include error analysis), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through the description of what it does, but not explicitly stated.

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