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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a diagnostic tool for connection testing, mentions performance characteristics ('REAL-TIME: 2-5s'), specifies what it validates (credentials, environment accessibility), and indicates what it returns (permission levels, accessible environments, project info). It doesn't mention potential side effects or error handling, but covers most essential behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second provides usage context, and the third clarifies returns and alternatives. There's minimal redundancy, though the structure could be slightly more organized around distinct functional aspects.

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 diagnostic nature and 7 undocumented parameters with no output schema, the description provides good context on purpose and usage but insufficient parameter guidance. It covers behavioral aspects well given no annotations, but the parameter gap is significant. For a connection testing tool with many configuration options, more parameter context would improve completeness.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions one parameter ('Optional: project') without explaining what 'project' refers to or providing any context for the other 6 parameters (projectId, projectName, apiKey, apiSecret, setupMode, autoFix, skipChecks). This leaves most parameters semantically unclear.

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 ('Test API connection', 'verify credentials', 'validates', 'checks', 'returns') and resources ('API key/secret', 'environment accessibility', 'permission levels', 'accessible environments', 'project info'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its diagnostic nature for connection testing versus other operational tools like 'verify_access' for detailed permission checks.

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 ('after configuration changes or when troubleshooting connection issues') and when not to use it by naming an alternative ('Use verify_access() for detailed permission checks'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools and sets appropriate context for its application.

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