Spotinst MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'account_id' defaults to an environment variable, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for a read operation tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., merging the default note into one sentence).

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is adequate with 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 explains 'vng_id' as 'The VNG/launch spec ID' with an example format and clarifies that 'account_id' is optional with a default value. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could detail constraints or effects more.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific AWS VNG (launch spec)'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vng_azure' or 'list_vngs', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 like 'get_vng_azure' for Azure VNGs or 'list_vngs' for listing multiple VNGs. It only documents parameters without context on usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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