Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ankra

by ai.ankra
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Execute cost decision

execute_cost_decision
Destructive

Run an approved cost decision now (the twin of ankra cost decisions execute): the change it plans happens on the cluster or cloud account - a right-size, a schedule, deleting released volumes. Answers the decision as the run left it: running with its operation_id, or settled with its receipt. A delete with no snapshot needs consent (no_snapshot_acknowledged, or the value the finding's kind names); min_unattached_days raises the minimum age of what a cleanup deletes. Needs the permission the ledger requires for the decision and its run.

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": {
      "decision_id": "<decision_id>"
    },
    "name": "execute_cost_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
consentNoThe written consent a delete with no snapshot needs: no_snapshot_acknowledged, or the value the finding's kind names.
decision_idYesThe id of a cost decision, as list_cost_decisions shows it.
min_unattached_daysNoThe minimum age in days of what a cleanup deletes (0 to 3650; less than the kind's floor is raised to it).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it names the concrete destructive effects (right-sizing, scheduling, deleting released volumes), the consent gate for snapshotless deletes, the minimum-age floor behavior of min_unattached_days, and the required ledger permission. It also discloses the response shape ('running with its operation_id, or settled with its receipt'), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, and every sentence carries information beyond the schema. It is dense but slightly tangled by parentheticals and the trailing permission clause, which is vaguer than the rest.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description does explain the return states (operation_id vs receipt) and covers permissions, consent, and destructive scope for a destructive mutation. It could go one step further and say what an agent should do with the operation_id (e.g., poll via wait_for_execution) to be fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters are already documented in structured form and the baseline is 3. The description largely restates them, adding only the marginal link that the consent value matches what "the finding's kind names" and that min_unattached_days raises the floor rather than erroring.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run an approved cost decision now') and immediately scopes the effect ('the change it plans happens on the cluster or cloud account - a right-size, a schedule, deleting released volumes'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like approve_cost_decision, hold_cost_decision, or list_cost_decisions, which never touch infrastructure.

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 word 'approved' establishes the key prerequisite that selects this tool over approve_cost_decision, and it names the permission and consent conditions that gate use. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools to use when the decision is not yet approved or when only inspecting.

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

All Ankra toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources