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 but only states it's a list operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'list' entails (e.g., returns all items or a subset). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but relevant, with no wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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 (list operation with 2 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it only adequate.

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 that 'ocean_id' is for filtering and 'account_id' is for an Azure account, including an example for 'ocean_id'. However, it doesn't fully cover semantics like format constraints or default behaviors, leaving gaps.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Azure Ocean Virtual Node Groups', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_vngs' or 'list_clusters_azure' beyond specifying the resource type, missing explicit 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_vngs' or 'get_vng_azure'. It mentions optional filtering parameters but doesn't explain context or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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