Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
spinnaker-mcp

spinnaker-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

List server groups

list_server_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all server groups for a Spinnaker application, including active deployment targets, instance counts, cloud provider details, and region/account info.

Instructions

List all server groups (ASGs, instance groups, replica sets) for a Spinnaker application. Use this to view active deployment targets and their instance counts across regions and accounts. Returns JSON array of server group objects with instance counts, cloud provider details, and region info.

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_server_groups"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0
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 needs no restating. The description's value-add is the return shape (array of server group objects with instance counts, provider, and region), but that largely duplicates the existing output schema, and it says nothing about pagination, empty results, or auth scope.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The final sentence restates return contents already captured by the output schema, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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 rich annotations, a fully described single parameter, and an output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Remaining gaps (pagination, behavior on unknown application names) are minor for a simple read-only list.

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 a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Application name as registered in Spinnaker"), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, casing, or lookup hints beyond what the schema provides — the correct baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 server groups") and adds disambiguating synonyms (ASGs, instance groups, replica sets) so the agent knows the underlying concept. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling get_target_server_group, which retrieves a single group, so it falls short of full 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?

"Use this to view active deployment targets and their instance counts across regions and accounts" gives a clear condition for selecting this tool. There is no when-not guidance or explicit naming of alternatives such as get_cluster or get_target_server_group, so it is a 4 rather than 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