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. It mentions the search functionality but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about common use cases. Both sentences earn their place without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), output format, and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. For a tool that interacts with a query system like NerdGraph, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning examples like 'environment, team, service name' for tag usage, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Search for NewRelic entities using tags and NerdGraph query syntax.' It specifies the resource (NewRelic entities) and method (search using tags/NerdGraph). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_entity' or 'list_entity_types' beyond mentioning tag-based search.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this to find entities by environment, team, service name, or any custom tag.' This suggests when to use it (for tag-based entity searches) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_entity' for direct entity lookup or 'execute_nrql_query' for other query types. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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