margins-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

record_telemetry_consent

Records the user's consent for anonymous telemetry. Call this after the user answers the opt-in question to persist their choice.

Instructions

Record the user's choice on anonymous telemetry. Call this exactly once, only when the margins_start response had telemetryConsentNeeded=true AND the user has answered the in-chat opt-in question. Pass enabled=true if they said yes, enabled=false if they said no. The choice persists in ~/.margins/consent.json and applies to all future Margins sessions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "record_telemetry_consent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`enabled`	Yes	True if the user opted in, false if they declined.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.15.3Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation without destruction. Description adds that 'The choice persists in ~/.margins/consent.json and applies to all future Margins sessions,' clarifying long-term effects. No contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences with no waste: states purpose, gives exclusive usage condition, maps user response to parameter, and explains persistence. Front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation trigger, parameter mapping, and side effects. Complete given the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Single parameter 'enabled' with schema description 'True if the user opted in, false if they declined.' The description repeats this exactly, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Record the user's choice on anonymous telemetry' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like record_preference by focusing on telemetry consent and providing exact conditions for invocation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states 'Call this exactly once, only when the margins_start response had telemetryConsentNeeded=true AND the user has answered the in-chat opt-in question.' Also maps user answer to parameter value ('Pass enabled=true if they said yes, enabled=false if they said no').

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