Optimizely DXP 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 and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation is 'INSTANT: <1s', it 'Stops collecting tool usage analytics and error data', and 'Change persists for session'. However, it lacks details on potential side effects or error handling, leaving minor gaps in full transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it uses an emoji for quick visual cue, leads with the core action, includes performance metrics ('INSTANT: <1s'), explains the effect and optionality, notes persistence, and states parameter and return details—all in three efficient sentences with zero wasted words.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and confirms no parameters. However, without an output schema, it only briefly mentions 'Returns confirmation of disabled telemetry' without detailing the format, leaving a minor gap in full context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'No parameters', adding clarity that no inputs are needed, which is helpful for an agent to understand it's a simple command without configuration.

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 specific action ('Disable anonymous usage telemetry collection') and resource ('telemetry'), with the emoji reinforcing the action. It explicitly distinguishes from its sibling 'enable_telemetry' by describing the opposite function, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Telemetry helps improve MCP server but is fully optional' indicates it's for users who want to opt out of analytics. It directly contrasts with 'enable_telemetry' as the alternative, and 'Change persists for session' clarifies the temporal scope, offering clear context for decision-making.

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