Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spotinst MCP Server

Spotinst MCP Server

by arnstarn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

export_vng_yaml

Export a VNG configuration to YAML for GitOps backup and comparison. Supports AWS and Azure with optional account ID.

Instructions

Export a VNG configuration as YAML. Useful for GitOps comparison or backup.

Args: vng_id: The VNG ID (e.g. ols-abc12345 for AWS, vng-abc12345 for Azure) account_id: Optional account ID to query. Defaults to SPOTINST_ACCOUNT_ID env var. cloud: Cloud provider: aws or azure (default: aws)

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": {
      "vng_id": "<vng_id>"
    },
    "name": "export_vng_yaml"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vng_idYes
account_idNo
cloudNoaws

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states a read-like export action but omits error handling, permissions, or side effects. With zero annotation support, this is insufficient.

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 mostly concise with a clear sentence and a structured param list, though the docstring style adds slight verbosity for a simple tool.

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?

The description covers the purpose and parameters well. It doesn't explain output schema usage (but it exists) or how the YAML relates to other tools like create_vng, but overall is sufficient for an agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed parameter explanations (e.g., vng_id format, account_id default, cloud options), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's basic fields.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Export a VNG configuration as YAML' with specific verb and resource, and the context of GitOps/backup distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_vng' (likely JSON) and 'export_cluster_yaml'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage via 'Useful for GitOps comparison or backup' but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives like 'get_vng' for non-YAML needs.

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