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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's purpose and parameters but doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the cost breakdown returns, potential rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the account_id parameter, or error conditions. The description provides basic operational context but lacks critical behavioral details.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first, making it easy to understand the tool's function 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 complexity (6 parameters, cost analysis functionality) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good contextual coverage. The parameter semantics are fully documented, and with an output schema handling return values, the description appropriately focuses on purpose and input guidance. The main gap is in behavioral transparency for a tool that likely involves financial data access.

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 detailed semantic explanations for all 6 parameters. Each parameter gets specific context: cluster_id format examples, ISO 8601 format requirements for time parameters, grouping options with defaults, account_id environment variable fallback, and cloud provider options with defaults. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Get aggregated cost breakdown') and resource ('for an Ocean cluster'), specifying both AWS and Azure cloud providers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_cluster' or 'get_cluster_log' by focusing exclusively on cost analysis rather than general cluster information or logs.

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 implies usage context through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'Defaults to SPOTINST_ACCOUNT_ID env var'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or what other tools might serve similar purposes, leaving usage decisions to inference from the tool name and parameters.

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