spinnaker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List networks

list_networks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all networks (VPCs) across Spinnaker accounts and cloud providers so you can discover available networks when configuring deployment targets or security groups.

Instructions

List all networks (VPCs) across all Spinnaker accounts and cloud providers. Use this to discover available networks when configuring deployment targets or security groups. Returns JSON array of network objects with provider, account, and CIDR details.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_networks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No	Number of records in items.
`items`	No	The records, when Gate answered with a list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1Nov 1, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Apr 23, 2026

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results span all accounts and providers and mentions the returned fields, but it does not discuss pagination, result size, or latency across a broad open-world query, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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: purpose first, then use case, then return shape. The third sentence partially restates what the output schema already provides, but it is short enough that nothing feels padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this description covers purpose, scope, use case, and return contents. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering options exist and does not invent parameters that aren't in the schema.

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 and resource ('List all networks (VPCs)') plus the scope ('across all Spinnaker accounts and cloud providers'), which is enough to distinguish it from most siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby tools like list_subnets or list_firewalls, which an agent could plausibly confuse with network listing.

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 discover available networks when configuring deployment targets or security groups' gives a clear triggering context. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so the agent must infer when list_subnets would be the better choice, but the positive guidance is solid.

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