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 tool 'uses NRQL to query the NrAiIncident event type,' which adds some technical context about the underlying mechanism. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and method. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could potentially be more structured with usage guidance.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and technical approach but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details about return values. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has incomplete information about what to expect from this tool's operation.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds marginal value by listing the filtering criteria (state, priority, entity) and mentioning NRQL usage, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already specifies (e.g., parameter interactions or query syntax details). With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 searches NewRelic incidents with specific filtering capabilities (state, priority, entity) and mentions it uses NRQL to query the NrAiIncident event type. This provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('NewRelic incidents'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recent_issues' or 'execute_nrql_query' which might have 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_recent_issues' or 'execute_nrql_query' that might serve similar purposes, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and parameters alone.

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