Skip to main content
Glama
JaxonDigital

Optimizely DXP MCP Server

by JaxonDigital

get_cache_status

Check cache performance metrics to monitor hit/miss rates by operation type and understand caching effectiveness in Optimizely DXP environments.

Instructions

💾 View cache performance metrics. REAL-TIME: <1s. NOTE: Cache is now operation-specific (no central management). Shows cache hit/miss rates for different operation types. Use to understand caching effectiveness. No parameters. Returns cache statistics by operation type.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNameNo
projectIdNo
actionNostatus

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler logic for retrieving detailed cache statistics (hits, misses, size, hit rate, etc.), which implements the get_cache_status tool functionality.
    getStats(): CacheStatsReport {
        const hitRate = this.cacheStats.hits + this.cacheStats.misses > 0
            ? (this.cacheStats.hits / (this.cacheStats.hits + this.cacheStats.misses) * 100).toFixed(1)
            : '0.0';
    
        return {
            ...this.cacheStats,
            entries: this.cache.size,
            hitRate: `${hitRate}%`,
            sizeMB: (this.cacheStats.size / (1024 * 1024)).toFixed(2),
            maxSizeMB: (this.options.maxCacheSize / (1024 * 1024)).toFixed(2)
        };
    }
  • Registration of the get_cache_status tool in the availability matrix, marking it as available across all hosting types under the Monitoring category.
    'get_cache_status': {
        hostingTypes: ['dxp-paas', 'dxp-saas', 'self-hosted', 'unknown'],
        category: 'Monitoring',
        description: 'Get cache status'
    },
Behavior4/5

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the real-time performance characteristic (<1s), the operation-specific nature of the cache, what information is returned (cache hit/miss rates by operation type), and that it's a read-only operation (implied by 'View' and 'Shows'). It doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but covers the core behavior well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second gives performance characteristics and architectural context, the third specifies what it shows, the fourth provides usage guidance, and the fifth clarifies parameters and returns. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the contradiction between 'No parameters' in the description and 3 parameters in the schema, the description is incomplete and misleading. While it covers the tool's purpose and behavior adequately for a no-parameter tool, it fails to address the actual parameter requirements. With no output schema and incomplete parameter information, significant gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explicitly states 'No parameters' while the input schema shows 3 parameters (projectName, projectId, action with enum). This is a direct contradiction. The description provides no information about any parameters, failing to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('View cache performance metrics', 'Shows cache hit/miss rates') and resources ('cache performance metrics', 'cache statistics by operation type'). It distinguishes itself from potential siblings by emphasizing 'operation-specific (no central management)' and focusing on performance metrics rather than management functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use to understand caching effectiveness') and mentions its real-time nature ('REAL-TIME: <1s'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the siblings for different cache-related needs.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JaxonDigital/optimizely-dxp-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server