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 the tool 'Get details,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include (e.g., status, configuration). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Each parameter explanation is concise and relevant. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., using bullet points).

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and parameters well. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error cases, side effects), which would be beneficial given the absence of annotations.

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 meaningful semantics for all four parameters: 'cluster_id' and 'roll_id' are explained with examples, 'account_id' notes its optionality and default, and 'cloud' specifies allowed values and default. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on format constraints or validation rules.

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 Ocean cluster roll (AWS or Azure).' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('Ocean cluster roll'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_rolls' (which lists multiple rolls) and 'initiate_roll' (which creates a roll). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_cluster' or 'get_cluster_azure', which might retrieve cluster-level details rather than roll-specific ones.

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 specifying 'a specific Ocean cluster roll' and listing parameters, suggesting it's for retrieving details of an individual roll. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_rolls' (for listing multiple rolls) or 'get_cluster' (for cluster-level details), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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