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 mentions the tool returns 'matching query patterns, templates, and NRQL syntax guidance' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it makes external API calls, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant information. Could be slightly improved with more behavioral context but maintains good structure.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral transparency. For a query construction tool that likely involves complex pattern matching and returns guidance rather than data, more detail about output format or limitations would improve completeness. The current description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'natural language description' generally but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: converting natural language descriptions into NRQL query suggestions, including patterns, templates, and syntax guidance. It specifies the target system (NewRelic) and distinguishes from siblings like execute_nrql_query by focusing on query construction rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential query-related tools.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this when you need help constructing NRQL queries for NewRelic.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use it (query construction assistance) and implies alternatives like execute_nrql_query for actual query execution. It doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or all alternatives.

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