Spotinst MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explicitly labeling the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE' and explaining what happens ('drain and replace nodes in batches'). It mentions the safety requirement ('confirm=true') but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains.

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 most critical information first ('DESTRUCTIVE' warning and core purpose). The parameter explanations are comprehensive but necessary given the schema coverage gap. The structure could be slightly improved by separating the parameter details more clearly from the main description.

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?

For a complex, destructive operation with 9 parameters and no annotations, the description does well by covering purpose, destructiveness, safety requirements, and parameter semantics. Since there's an output schema (per context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It could benefit from more behavioral context about what happens during the roll process.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for every parameter in the Args section. Each parameter gets meaningful context beyond just names (e.g., 'default: 20', 'Empty = all', 'Defaults to SPOTINST_ACCOUNT_ID env var'), adding substantial value over the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Initiate a rolling restart'), target resource ('nodes in an Ocean cluster'), and method ('drain and replace nodes in batches'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_roll' or 'list_rolls' by emphasizing the destructive initiation action rather than retrieval.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Requires confirm=true' as a safety guard) and implies it's for maintenance/restart scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. 'detach_instances' or 'update_vng').

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