Spotinst MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation (read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the cluster doesn't exist. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and doesn't explain return values (though output schema may cover this). For a read operation with siblings, it's minimally complete but misses usage differentiation.

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 provides clear semantics for all 3 parameters: cluster_id (Ocean cluster ID with example), account_id (optional with default source), and cloud (provider with default). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format constraints beyond the example.

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 ('List all nodes') and resource ('in an Ocean cluster'), specifying AWS or Azure providers. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_cluster' (which returns cluster metadata) or 'list_clusters' (which lists clusters rather than nodes).

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 for retrieving node lists from Ocean clusters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_cluster' for cluster details or 'list_clusters' for cluster enumeration. 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.