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 only states that the tool 'Get details,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include (e.g., configuration, status). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief and directly relevant. There's no unnecessary fluff, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters (one required, one with a default), and 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool in this context.

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 value by explaining that 'vng_id' is 'The VNG ID' with an example (e.g., 'vng-14e08b61') and 'account_id' is for 'an Azure account.' However, it doesn't fully document both parameters—e.g., it doesn't specify the format or source for 'account_id' or whether it's optional (though the schema shows it has a default). This partial compensation meets the baseline for low coverage.

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 Azure VNG.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('Azure VNG'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_vng' or 'list_vngs_azure', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'get_vng' (for non-Azure VNGs) or 'list_vngs_azure' (for listing multiple VNGs), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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