Spotinst MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explicitly labeling the tool as 'DESTRUCTIVE', explaining the confirm safety mechanism, and detailing default behaviors for termination and capacity decrement. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth requirements, but provides substantial behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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

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

Well-structured with a clear warning upfront, followed by parameter details. The Args section is efficiently formatted. Could be slightly more concise by integrating the confirm requirement into the main sentence rather than separate line, but overall very effective.

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

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

For a destructive mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides comprehensive coverage: clear purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral warnings, and complete parameter documentation. The output schema handles return values, so the description focuses appropriately on inputs and behavior.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for all 6 parameters including examples (e.g., 'o-abc12345'), default values, optionality, and practical usage notes like the SPOTINST_ACCOUNT_ID env var fallback. Every parameter is meaningfully documented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('detach and optionally terminate instances'), identifies the target resource ('from an AWS Ocean cluster'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are primarily read-only operations (e.g., get_cluster, list_clusters). The inclusion of 'DESTRUCTIVE' further emphasizes its unique nature.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Requires confirm=true') and provides a safety guard. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only destructive/mutation tool among many read-only operations, making it clear this is for removal actions rather than retrieval.

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