Spotinst MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section with concise explanations for each parameter. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers parameters well but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. With no annotations and an output schema, it's adequate for basic use but could better address when to use it and operational details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'cluster_id' is explained as 'The Ocean cluster ID (e.g. o-abc12345)' with an example, and 'account_id' clarifies it's optional with a default from an environment variable. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles and types, providing practical context that aids correct usage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific AWS Ocean cluster.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('AWS Ocean cluster'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_cluster_azure' or 'get_cluster_nodes' beyond mentioning 'AWS Ocean' in the resource.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_clusters' for listing multiple clusters or 'get_cluster_azure' for Azure-specific clusters, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit usage hint is the focus on a 'specific' cluster, but this is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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