Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spotinst MCP Server

Spotinst MCP Server

by arnstarn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_stateful_node_azure

Retrieve details of an Azure Stateful Node by providing its node ID and optional account ID.

Instructions

Get details of a specific Azure Stateful Node.

Args: node_id: The Azure Stateful Node ID account_id: Account ID for an Azure account.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_stateful_node_azure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYes
account_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states 'Get details', missing information on mutability, permissions, rate limits, or response characteristics. The read-only nature is obvious but not explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness, which prevents a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about what details are returned, how to interpret them, or how to use the tool effectively. Sibling tools are not mentioned, and the parameter semantics are insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no descriptions for parameters. The description only lists parameter names without adding any meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not indicate the format of node_id or the role of account_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get details of a specific Azure Stateful Node', specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stateful_node' or 'get_cluster_azure', so it loses the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_stateful_nodes_azure' or 'get_stateful_node'. No exclusions or context provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools