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. It discloses the tool's purpose and what information is returned ('monitor GUIDs, names, current status, and success rates'), but lacks details about behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though cursor parameter hints at it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: purpose definition, resource explanation, and return information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the middle sentence about synthetic monitors could be considered slightly explanatory rather than strictly necessary.

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 read-only listing tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what's returned but lacks details about response format, pagination behavior, or error handling. The absence of annotations means the description should ideally cover more behavioral aspects.

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 all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering capabilities generally, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or interactions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('NewRelic synthetic monitors') with specific scope ('with status and success rate information'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on synthetic monitors specifically, unlike other tools that handle alerts, dashboards, entities, or logs.

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 context by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Filter by account or status'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_alert_conditions' or 'list_dashboards'. No explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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