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 but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions default values and an environment variable fallback for account_id, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what happens if dates are invalid. For a read operation with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating defaults into the parameter descriptions more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters and their semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling are missing, preventing a perfect score.

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 semantics for all 7 parameters. Each parameter is explained with examples (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD format'), default values, enums (severity: ALL, INFO, WARN, ERROR), and contextual notes (account_id defaults to env var). 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 scaling and activity log events'), identifies the target resource ('for an Ocean cluster'), and specifies the scope ('AWS or Azure'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_cluster (general info) or get_cluster_nodes (node details) by focusing on log events.

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 by mentioning 'scaling and activity log events' and specifying cloud providers, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cluster (for general info) or get_roll (for deployment logs). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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