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 source ('NrChangeTracking') and types of events included, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. For a list tool with zero 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 communicates the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a list tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the examples. There's no wasted verbiage.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (format, structure, or content), behavioral constraints, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context of using 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema does the heavy lifting. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema provides complete parameter documentation.

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: 'List change events from NrChangeTracking' with specific examples of what's included ('deployments, configuration changes, and other tracked changes'). It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('change events'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recent_logs' or 'list_recent_issues' which might also list events.

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 'analyze_deployment_impact' or 'list_recent_logs' that might be relevant for similar purposes, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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