Duplicate listing. The gpu.nz MCP server is listed as gpu.nz GPU cloud (official MCP registry name nz.gpu/gpu-cloud), same endpoint https://gpu.nz/mcp.
get_offerDetails and the current price of one offer by id (from search_offers).
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": {
"offer_id": "<offer_id>"
},
"name": "get_offer"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer_id | Yes | Offer id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, external-data nature is covered. The description adds that the response includes the 'current price', hinting at freshness/recomputation, but says nothing about failure modes (unknown id), auth, or rate limits.
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?
One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 one-param read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient, and it names the returned content ('details and the current price'). With no output schema, 'Details' remains vague about the actual return shape, which is the only real gap.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage and a single required param documented as 'Offer id', the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only restates that the id selects one offer and hints at its origin; it adds no format or validation guidance beyond maxLength 64 in the schema.
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 a specific verb+resource (fetch details and current price of one offer by id), which is clearly a single-item lookup rather than a browse. The parenthetical 'from search_offers' implicitly separates it from the sibling that produces offer ids, though no other siblings are contrasted.
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?
'by id (from search_offers)' establishes the two-step workflow and points the agent at the alternative that yields ids. It does not state exclusions or what to do if the id is unknown, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.