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. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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. The 'Args' section is structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., merging the sentences).

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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: 'group_id' is explained as 'The Elastigroup ID (e.g. sig-abc12345)', and 'account_id' clarifies it's optional with a default from an environment variable. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully document all aspects (e.g., format constraints).

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 Elastigroup.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Elastigroup'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_elastigroups' by focusing on a specific instance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get_' tools (e.g., 'get_cluster'), so it's not fully differentiated.

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 siblings like 'list_elastigroups' for multiple groups or other 'get_' tools for different resource types. The only implied context is retrieving details for a specific ID, but no explicit usage rules are given.

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