Optimizely DXP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing key behavioral traits: performance ('INSTANT: <1s'), data privacy ('No personal data collected, only tool names and error types'), persistence ('Change persists for session'), and confirmation behavior ('Returns confirmation of enabled telemetry'). It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers most important aspects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by key behavioral details in a logical sequence. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The emoji adds visual distinction without compromising clarity.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, behavior, and usage context. It explains what happens when invoked, what data is collected, persistence, and return value. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating whether this requires specific permissions or authentication.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'No parameters' and explains what the tool does without requiring parameter input, which adds appropriate context beyond the empty schema.

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 ('Enable anonymous usage telemetry collection') and resource ('telemetry'), distinguishing it from its sibling 'disable_telemetry'. It provides concrete details about what gets enabled (tool usage patterns and error data) rather than just restating the tool name.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Resumes collecting... for product improvement') and provides clear alternatives by naming its sibling 'disable_telemetry'. It also specifies the persistence ('Change persists for session'), giving clear context for when the effect applies.

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