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 optional filtering and a default for account_id, but fails to disclose critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with AWS resources.

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, followed by arg details in a structured format. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized, though the arg section could be slightly more integrated into the main text for better flow.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema relieves the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited for a tool with AWS integration complexity.

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 meaningful semantics: 'ocean_id' is explained as an optional filter with an example format, and 'account_id' clarifies the default from an environment variable. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could detail constraints or effects more.

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 ('AWS Ocean Virtual Node Groups (VNGs / launch specs)'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_vngs_azure' or 'get_vng', which would require a 5.

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 such as 'list_vngs_azure' or 'get_vng', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The arg descriptions imply optional filtering but lack contextual usage advice.

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