Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
spinnaker-mcp

spinnaker-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

List load balancers

list_load_balancers
Read-onlyIdempotent

List load balancers for a Spinnaker application across accounts and regions to inspect network routing and health checks. Returns JSON with listener, health check, and server group details.

Instructions

List all load balancers for a Spinnaker application across all accounts and regions. Use this to inspect network routing and health check configuration for an application. Returns JSON array of load balancer objects with listener, health check, and attached server group details.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_load_balancers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applicationYesApplication name as registered in Spinnaker

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those: the query spans all accounts and regions (i.e., no account/region filter is possible, expect a broad result) and the payload includes listener, health check, and attached server group details.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and its scope before the use case. The third sentence restates return contents that an output schema already covers, which is the only real redundancy.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering read-only semantics, the description needn't document return values or safety. The one gap is operational: an all-accounts/all-regions listing could be large, and nothing is said about result volume or whether truncation occurs.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains "application" as the Spinnaker-registered name. The description references the application scoping but adds no format, case-sensitivity, or wildcard guidance beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List all load balancers") and scopes it to a Spinnaker application across all accounts and regions, which clearly separates it from single-object getters like get_cluster or get_application. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the list/get split rather than stated.

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?

"Use this to inspect network routing and health check configuration for an application" gives a concrete use case that tells an agent when to reach for it. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer list_server_groups or get_target_server_group instead, or what to do if the result is huge.

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