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 does reveal some behavioral traits: it mentions wildcard support with %, optional time range, and that it's for 'targeted log searches'. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance implications, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format/logs are returned. The description adds some value but leaves significant 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 perfectly concise and well-structured. It uses just two sentences: the first states the core functionality with key features, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 6-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and some behavioral aspects, it doesn't address what the tool returns (log format, structure, or content), error conditions, or important constraints beyond the basic parameter descriptions. The description is adequate for understanding what the tool does but insufficient for fully understanding how to interpret results.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'field and value' and 'optional time range', which the schema already documents thoroughly with 100% coverage. The description does add the wildcard pattern matching detail for the value parameter, which provides some additional context. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 as 'Search logs by field and value with optional time range', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_recent_logs' by emphasizing targeted searches based on specific criteria rather than just listing recent logs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analyze_entity_logs' or 'execute_nrql_query', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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 some usage guidance with 'Use this for targeted log searches based on specific criteria', which implies this tool is for specific queries rather than general listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but incomplete for proper tool selection.

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