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. It mentions the tool lists all Elastigroups, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., across regions). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main action, but the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly, though it remains efficient with minimal waste.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on usage context and behavioral aspects. It covers the basics but doesn't fully address how to interact with the tool effectively, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 description adds meaning by explaining the 'account_id' parameter as optional with a default from an environment variable, which isn't in the schema (0% coverage). However, with only one parameter and partial coverage, it compensates somewhat but doesn't fully detail the parameter's role or constraints, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 all') and resource ('Elastigroups in a Spotinst account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_elastigroup' (singular) or 'list_clusters', which might list different resource types, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for bulk listing versus detailed retrieval with 'get_elastigroup', or how it relates to cluster listing tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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