Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
spinnaker-mcp

spinnaker-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

Server group scaling activities

get_scaling_activities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve auto-scaling events for a Spinnaker server group to audit capacity changes and diagnose scaling issues.

Instructions

Get scaling activities for a server group in a Spinnaker cluster. Use this to audit recent auto-scaling events (scale-up, scale-down) and diagnose capacity issues. Returns JSON array of scaling activity records with timestamps, descriptions, and status.

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": {
      "application": "<application>",
      "account": "<account>",
      "cluster_name": "<cluster_name>",
      "server_group_name": "<server_group_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_scaling_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYesSpinnaker account name
providerNoCloud provider (e.g. aws, gce, kubernetes)
applicationYesApplication name as registered in Spinnaker
cluster_nameYesCluster name as shown in the Spinnaker UI
server_group_nameYesServer group name (e.g., myapp-v001)

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. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / cluster_name / description
      Previous value: -"Cluster name"New value: +"Cluster name as shown in the Spinnaker UI"
    • changedInput schema / properties / server_group_name / description
      Previous value: -"Server group name"New value: +"Server group name (e.g., myapp-v001)"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's note about returning JSON records with timestamps, descriptions and status adds a little context, but that is redundant with the existing output schema, and it says nothing about pagination, limits or auth beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage and return shape. Efficient overall, though the return-shape sentence overlaps with the output schema and could be trimmed.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the remaining purpose and usage context. It is nearly complete for this read-only getter; only pagination/rate-limit behavior is unaddressed.

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 all five parameters (account, application, cluster_name, server_group_name, provider) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get scaling activities for a server group') plus the system context (Spinnaker cluster), which clearly separates it from sibling getters like get_cluster or list_server_groups. An agent knows exactly what it is fetching.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to audit recent auto-scaling events ... and diagnose capacity issues', giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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