cloudsealed-mcp
OfficialServer Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| PREDICTIVE_ML_CORE_URL | No | URL of the Predictive-ML-Core service. Defaults to http://localhost:8092. | http://localhost:8092 |
| PREDICTIVE_ML_CORE_API_KEY | No | Optional API key for the Predictive-ML-Core deployment that requires one. |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| cloudsealed_analyze_billing_wasteA | Detect cost anomalies in a cloud billing export (AWS/GCP/Azure/generic). Models the expected daily spend for each day as a rolling-median baseline times a day-of-week factor, then flags days whose actual spend deviates from that baseline by a robust (median-absolute-deviation-based) modified z-score. This is resistant to the "masking effect" that causes textbook mean+standard-deviation detectors to miss anomalies once a few large spikes have inflated the standard deviation. It does NOT call any cloud provider API — the caller must already have exported the billing data to a CSV/text string and pass its contents directly. Args: params (AnalyzeBillingWasteInput): Validated input containing: - csv_content (str): Raw billing export text (see field description for supported provider formats). - analysis_type (AnalysisType): 'waste-audit' (default), 'cost-forecast', or 'efficiency'. - response_format (ResponseFormat): 'markdown' (default) or 'json'. Returns: str: Markdown report, or a JSON object with this schema: { "anomalies": [ {"date": str, "expectedCost": float, "actualCost": float, "deviation": float, "zScore": float, "severity": "LOW"|"MEDIUM"|"HIGH"|"CRITICAL", "description": str} ], "metrics": {"averageDailyCost": float, "stdDeviation": float, "sharpeRatio": float, "wastePercentage": float}, "recommendations": [ {"title": str, "description": str, "potentialSavings": float, "effort": "LOW"|"MEDIUM"|"HIGH"} ], "summary": str } Examples: - Use when: "Why did our AWS bill spike last month?" -> paste the CUR export contents as csv_content. - Use when: "What will we spend next month at this rate?" -> analysis_type="cost-forecast". - Don't use when: you need architecture/reliability risk instead of cost — use cloudsealed_score_architecture_risk. |
| cloudsealed_score_architecture_riskA | Score architecture risk from a declared system inventory. Scores single-point-of-failure, excessive-coupling, and scalability-gap risk (0-100 each) for every declared system using explicit, weighted rules — not a trained model. Every score ships with a rule-by-rule breakdown so the reasoning is auditable, not a black box. Calls the Predictive-ML-Core production HTTP service (or a self-hosted instance if PREDICTIVE_ML_CORE_URL is set). Args: params (ScoreArchitectureRiskInput): Validated input containing: - company_name (str): Name of the company/project. - systems (list[SystemInput]): Declared inventory — each with name, type (APPLICATION|DATABASE|API|THIRD_PARTY_SERVICE), criticality (LOW|MEDIUM|HIGH|CRITICAL), public_facing, and optional data_sensitivity/auth_method. - historical_metrics (Optional[HistoricalMetricsInput]): Observed latency/throughput, improves the scalability-gap score. - response_format (ResponseFormat): 'markdown' (default) or 'json'. Returns: str: Markdown report, or a JSON object with this schema: { "predictions": [ {"systemName": str, "riskScores": {"singlePointOfFailure": int, "excessiveCoupling": int, "scalabilityGap": int}, "scoreBreakdown": {...rule-by-rule points and rationale...}, "findings": [{"title": str, "severity": str, "description": str, "remediation": str}], "recommendations": [{"title": str, "description": str, "effort": str}]} ], "architectureSummary": str, "overallArchitectureScore": int } Examples: - Use when: "Is our checkout service a single point of failure?" -> declare it with criticality=CRITICAL, type=API. - Use when: "Which of these services should we harden first?" -> declare the whole inventory and compare riskScores. - Don't use when: you need cost/billing analysis — use cloudsealed_analyze_billing_waste. Error Handling: - Returns "Error: Request timed out..." if the service doesn't respond within 30s. - Returns "Error: ..." with the upstream message on 4xx/5xx responses. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools address completely different domains—architecture risk scoring and billing waste analysis. Each description explicitly references the other as the tool not to use for the wrong scenario, leaving no ambiguity about their distinct purposes.
Both tools follow the consistent pattern `cloudsealed_<verb>_<noun>` using snake_case, with verbs 'score' and 'analyze' clearly indicating actions. Naming is uniform and predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels thin. While each tool is substantial and covers a distinct need, the overall scope is narrow for a server named 'cloudsealed-mcp', making it borderline.
The two tools cover their specific analysis tasks well, but the server lacks supporting operations such as fetching cloud data or handling remediation. The billing tool requires the user to supply CSV data, and there's no way to act on the findings, leaving notable gaps.