Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
spinnaker-mcp

spinnaker-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

Get account

get_account
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve details for a specific Spinnaker account by name, including cloud provider type, permissions, and regions, to verify configuration or check permissions before deploying.

Instructions

Get details for a specific Spinnaker account by name, including its cloud provider type, permissions, and regions. Use this to verify account configuration or check permissions before deploying. Returns JSON with full account metadata.

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": {
      "account": "<account>"
    },
    "name": "get_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYesSpinnaker account name

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of records in items.
itemsNoThe records, when Gate answered with a list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "The Gate response. A JSON object from Gate comes back as is; a JSON array comes back as {items, count}.",
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of records in items.",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "The records, when Gate answered with a list.",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about the account details available and the pre-deployment verification use case. It does not add much beyond that, such as authentication requirements or limitations on visibility, so with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with the core operation front-loaded. Each sentence adds useful information about what is returned or when to use it. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has rich annotations, an output schema, and a fully described single parameter, so the description mainly needs to state purpose and usage. It does that well. The main missing piece is explicit routing versus list_accounts, which would make selection even clearer.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the account name parameter. The description reinforces that lookup is by account name but does not add format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: get details for a single Spinnaker account by name. It also lists the kind of data returned, which makes the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling list_accounts tool, so it falls short of the strongest sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear use case: verify account configuration or check permissions before deploying. That provides useful context for selecting this tool. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or route the agent to list_accounts for account discovery.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools