Spotinst MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool lists rolls but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, safe, paginated, rate-limited, or requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and misses key operational details needed for an agent to understand how it 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 and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description provides adequate context for a list operation. It covers the purpose, parameters, and cloud scope, but lacks behavioral details like safety or performance. For a simple list tool with output schema, this is mostly complete, though transparency gaps remain.

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 meaning by explaining each parameter: cluster_id as the Ocean cluster ID with an example, account_id as optional with a default from env var, and cloud as provider with default 'aws'. This clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema, but doesn't cover all potential nuances like format constraints or validation rules for the parameters.

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 deployment rolls') and the resource ('for an Ocean cluster'), specifying AWS or Azure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_roll' (singular) and 'initiate_roll', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_clusters' or 'list_vngs'. The purpose is specific but could better highlight uniqueness among siblings.

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 when needing to list deployment rolls for a cluster, with context on cloud providers. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_roll' for a specific roll or other list tools for different resources. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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