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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (listing) without mentioning permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if the account_id is invalid. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 brief with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one explaining the parameter. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose first. However, the second sentence could be more integrated rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description provides the basic purpose and parameter example. However, for a tool that presumably returns a list of clusters, more context about filtering, sorting, or result format would be helpful despite the output schema.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds the 'account_id' parameter with an example format ('act-9785011e'), which provides basic semantic context. However, with only 1 parameter documented out of 1 total, this barely meets the baseline for minimal parameter information.

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 ('List') and resource ('Azure Ocean clusters in a Spotinst account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_clusters' or 'list_all_clusters' which might list different types of clusters or have broader scopes.

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 'list_clusters' or 'list_all_clusters'. It mentions the account_id parameter but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate compared to other listing tools in the sibling set.

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