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 it 'Get details' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or the response format. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't mention it or add any behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than a separate 'Args:' section.

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 complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and doesn't leverage the output schema to hint at return values. For a tool with siblings and Azure-specific context, it should do more to be complete.

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 meaning by explaining 'cluster_id' as 'The Ocean cluster ID' with an example and 'account_id' as for an Azure account, which clarifies their roles. However, it doesn't cover details like format constraints, optionality of account_id (default is empty string), or where to find these IDs, leaving some gaps.

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 verb 'Get details' and the resource 'a specific Azure Ocean cluster', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_cluster' or 'get_cluster_nodes', which might also retrieve cluster details but for different contexts or scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for Azure-specific clusters compared to 'get_cluster' (which might be generic) or when to use it over 'list_clusters_azure' for broader listings. The description lacks any context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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