Calculate monthly OKE cluster costs for control plane and worker nodes based on cluster type, node shape, count, OCPUs, and memory.
Calculate OKE cluster cost including control plane and worker nodes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeCount | Yes | ||
| nodeOcpus | Yes | ||
| nodeShape | Yes | Worker node shape (e.g., VM.Standard.E5.Flex) | |
| clusterType | Yes | ||
| nodeMemoryGB | Yes | ||
| virtualNodes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that the cost includes control plane and worker nodes, which is useful but does not disclose what the cost is based on (e.g., list prices, no discounts) or whether the result is an estimate.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly restructured to front-load the tool's primary function. Still, it is concise and to the point.
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 output schema, the description should hint at what the cost output looks like. It does not explain that the tool returns an estimated monthly cost or any details about the calculation. With many sibling tools, a more complete description would help agents differentiate and understand the output.
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?
The input schema has 6 parameters with only 17% description coverage (only nodeShape has a description). The description does not explain the meaning of parameters like clusterType, nodeCount, nodeOcpus, nodeMemoryGB, or the virtualNodes nested object. It mentions control plane and worker nodes but does not map them to parameters, leaving ambiguity.
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 tool calculates OKE cluster cost, specifying it includes control plane and worker nodes. This verb+resource+scope is distinct from sibling tools like 'calculate_database_cost' or 'calculate_storage_cost'.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest related tools like 'compare_kubernetes_providers' or 'list_kubernetes_options'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.