Skip to main content
Glama
getnable

nable (finops-mcp)

by getnable
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Open rightsizing PR

open_rightsizing_pr

Apply rightsizing recommendations to Terraform files and open a GitHub pull request to reduce cloud costs.

Instructions

Apply rightsizing recommendations to Terraform source, optionally opening a GitHub PR.

nable reads your Terraform state (terraform.tfstate or terraform show -json) to automatically resolve AWS instance IDs to their Terraform resource addresses. No manual mapping needed as long as your tf_dir has state available.

Resolution order:

  1. Terraform state (automatic, reads instance IDs from state)

  2. resource_overrides (manual fallback if state is unavailable)

  3. recommended_config stored in DB

Modes: dry_run=True Show diffs only. Nothing written to disk. patch_only=True Write .tf files locally. No git, no PR. Use your own workflow. default Write files, commit to a branch, push, open GitHub PR.

After merging and running terraform apply, nable auto-verifies savings by checking AWS and updates the recommendation to "verified".

Args: tf_dir: Path to the Terraform working directory. github_repo: "owner/repo" for GitHub PR. Not needed for dry_run or patch_only. recommendation_ids: Specific rec IDs to act on. Omit to process all open rightsizing recs. resource_overrides: Manual fallback if state resolution fails. Format: [{"recommendation_id": 42, "tf_resource_type": "aws_instance", "tf_resource_name": "api_server"}, ...] branch: Branch to create. Defaults to "fix/rightsizing". base_branch: PR target branch. Defaults to "main". pr_title: PR title. Auto-generated from saving amount if omitted. dry_run: Show diffs without writing files or creating the PR. patch_only: Patch files locally, skip git and GitHub.

Examples: - "Show me what the rightsizing changes would look like" - "Apply the rightsizing fixes to my Terraform repo" - "Open a rightsizing PR against acme/infra" - "Patch the Terraform files but don't create a PR, I'll handle the git flow"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchNofix/rightsizing
tf_dirYes
dry_runNo
pr_titleNo
patch_onlyNo
base_branchNomain
github_repoNo
recommendation_idsNo
resource_overridesNo

Tool Definition Quality

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. Description details resolution order, state file usage, manual fallbacks, and post-PR auto-verification. No contradictions; adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with sections for overview, resolution order, modes, args, and examples. Front-loads the main purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers most aspects including modes, parameters, and post-merge behavior. Lacks explicit description of the return value (e.g., PR URL or status). For a complex tool with no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description comprehensively explains all 9 parameters, including formats (resource_overrides), defaults, and conditional requirements (e.g., github_repo not needed for dry_run). Adds meaning beyond schema names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it applies rightsizing recommendations to Terraform source and optionally opens a GitHub PR. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_rightsizing_recommendations' (listing) and 'verify_savings' (post-apply verification) by focusing on the action of applying changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly explains three modes (dry_run, patch_only, default) and when to use each. Provides examples covering typical user intents. Does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the context is clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/getnable/finopsmcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server