ras_site_get_cpu_optimizationRetrieve CPU optimization settings for a site to review CPU allocation across user sessions and troubleshoot performance issues.
CPU optimization settings for the site. Controls how CPU resources are allocated across user sessions. Use this to review resource management policies or troubleshoot performance issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the settings govern allocation across user sessions, but says nothing about whether settings are site-wide vs. farm-level or what is returned.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition. The second sentence ('Controls how CPU resources are allocated across user sessions') mildly restates the first, costing a little efficiency.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description could clarify what settings are actually returned (e.g., optimization mode or policy fields), but it stops at a general characterization. Adequate for a safe read call, but leaves the return content opaque.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; per the baseline for parameter-less tools, a 4 applies.
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?
States the resource ('CPU optimization settings for the site') and clarifies scope ('how CPU resources are allocated across user sessions'), which distinguishes it from other ras_site_get_* siblings. It never uses an explicit retrieval verb, relying on the name for that, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
Offers two use cases ('review resource management policies' or 'troubleshoot performance issues'), which implies context, but names no alternatives and does not address overlap with ras_farm_get_performance or ras_site_get_load_balancing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.