Optimizely DXP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses performance ('INSTANT: <1s'), return content (support resources object with specific elements), and clarifies it has no parameters. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by performance, return details, usage guidance, and parameter info in just three sentences. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, using emoji and formatting for readability.

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 simple, parameterless tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains purpose, usage, behavior, and returns. It could improve by specifying the exact structure of the 'support resources object' or error handling, but gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'No parameters,' which adds clarity beyond the empty schema, confirming this is a parameterless operation.

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 with specific verbs ('Get support contact information and documentation') and resources (email, URLs, links, page). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on support resources rather than operational functions like deployment or monitoring.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when you need help or want to report issues.' This provides clear context for invocation and differentiates it from other tools that handle technical operations rather than support requests.

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