skypilot-mcp

skypilot_cluster_endpoints

Read-only

Retrieve endpoint URLs for a SkyPilot cluster, optionally filtered by port number or name, returning a port-to-URL mapping for service access.

Instructions

Get the endpoint(s) for a cluster. Optionally filter by port number or port name. Returns a mapping of port numbers to endpoint URLs.

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": {
      "cluster_name": "<cluster_name>"
    },
    "name": "skypilot_cluster_endpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`port`	No
`cluster_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are a mapping of port numbers to endpoint URLs, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about auth needs, cluster-state requirements, or empty/failure cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the optional filter, then the return shape. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, filter, and return shape adequately. Minor gaps remain around cluster-state prerequisites, but nothing essential for invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'port' may be given as a number or a name—matching the schema's integer/string anyOf—and that it is optional, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema. cluster_name semantics are left implicit.

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 ('Get the endpoint(s) for a cluster') with a clear scope, and the resource is distinct from siblings like cluster_status or cluster_exec. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description mentions the optional port filter but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., cluster must be up), and no alternatives. The only 'guidance' is parameter behavior, not selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server