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. It discloses behavioral traits like parallel scanning and unified output format, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. The description adds some context but leaves gaps for a tool that likely involves significant data retrieval.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by implementation details in the second. Both sentences are essential—defining scope and method—with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (scanning multiple accounts/providers) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the scanning behavior and output unification, but could benefit from mentioning authentication needs or performance considerations. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on tool behavior rather than inputs, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary param info.

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 ('List ALL Ocean clusters') and resource ('across ALL accounts and cloud providers'), with explicit scope details ('AWS + Azure', 'every account in parallel'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'list_clusters' and 'list_clusters_azure' by emphasizing comprehensive coverage.

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 'across ALL accounts and cloud providers', suggesting this tool is for broad inventory rather than filtered views. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'list_clusters' or 'list_clusters_azure', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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