Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
timps-swarm

timps-swarm

by Sandeeprdy1729
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

timps_finops_agent

Control cloud spending by analysing costs with Infracost, generating rightsizing recommendations, and setting budget alerts.

Instructions

Analyse cloud costs with Infracost, generate rightsizing recommendations and budget alerts.

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": "timps_finops_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestNoPlain-English task or context for the agent.
languageNoPrimary programming language (default: python).python

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure; however, it only names the outputs (recommendations, budget alerts) without revealing any side effects, prerequisites, or operational details. It doesn't mention that running Infracost likely requires network calls, API keys, or external tooling, nor whether any action is taken or just recommended. The description is purely functional and leaves the agent unaware of the tool's full operational footprint.

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?

The description is a single, scannable sentence that front-loads the key verb and object, making it efficient and easy to parse. The only deduction is that it borders on under-specification, conflating brevity with conciseness by omitting essential details about how to use the tool effectively.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with a generic 'request' parameter and zero required arguments, the description does too little work. It provides no examples of valid 'requests', no clarification of the output format (text, JSON, tags), and no mention of common constraints (e.g., cloud provider, cost data sources, refresh frequency). The tool—potentially a powerful FinOps agent—feels underspecified in its current form, leaving too much to be inferred if Infracost is unavailable or configured differently than expected.

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 the baseline is 3 per the rubric, and the schema does provide short descriptions for both 'request' and 'language'. However, the description itself adds no semantic clarity—especially for the unexpected 'language' parameter (why would a FinOps agent need a primary programming language?), which is surprising given the schema includes it. The description misses the opportunity to explain whether 'language' refers to IaC type, cost data format, or something else entirely.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('analyse'), resource ('cloud costs'), specific tooling ('Infracost'), and concrete outputs ('rightsizing recommendations and budget alerts'). The main deduction is that it doesn't distinguish itself from obviously overlapping siblings like timps_cloud_cost_auditor, timps_cost_optimizer, and timps_observability_cost_optimizer—close cost-focused tools where differentiation would be valuable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus the many adjacent siblings—particularly timps_cloud_cost_auditor, timps_cost_optimizer, and timps_observability_cost_optimizer, which cover similar ground. There is no mention of the use case (e.g., 'use this for Infracost-generated reports' or 'when you need budget alerts'), so an agent would struggle to select the right tool from the large set of cost-related options.

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