boaviztapi-mcp

Estimate a cloud instance

estimate_cloud_instance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the environmental footprint of a single cloud VM, including embedded manufacturing impacts and electricity use per impact criterion, with units, ranges, and warnings.

Instructions

Estimate the environmental footprint of one cloud VM: its share of the host server's manufacturing (embedded) and the electricity it uses (use), per impact criterion, with units, min-max ranges and warnings.

Use it for a single instance; use compare_estimates to rank several and estimate_server for physical servers. Give either region (the provider's region, which fixes the electricity mix) or usage_location (a country), not both; with neither, a wide European default is used. duration_hours sets the period (8760 = one year); omit it for the whole hardware lifetime. Read-only: one BoaviztAPI request, cached for an hour; if one criterion fails upstream the others are still returned. Use search_catalog(kind='cloud_instance', provider=...) if unsure of a name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "provider": "<provider>",
      "instance_type": "<instance_type>"
    },
    "name": "estimate_cloud_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	No	'breakdown' adds per-component impacts and all assumptions.	summary
`region`	No	Provider region such as 'eu-west-3'; exclusive with usage_location.
`criteria`	No	Impact criteria codes; default gwp, adp, pe. See list_impact_criteria. 'all' is not accepted.
`provider`	Yes	Cloud provider, e.g. 'aws'.
`load_percent`	No	Average CPU load in percent.
`instance_type`	Yes	Instance type, e.g. 'm5.xlarge'.
`duration_hours`	No	Period assessed in hours (8760 = 1 year, 730 = 1 month). Omit for the whole hardware lifetime.
`usage_location`	No	Where the electricity comes from: country name or 3-letter code ('Germany', 'DEU'), 'WOR' for world or 'EEE' for Europe.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`api`	Yes
`notes`	No
`impacts`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`summary`	Yes	Plain-text digest; quote it or use the fields.
`duration`	Yes
`location`	Yes
`breakdown`	No
`assumptions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world access, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real operational context: a single BoaviztAPI call, one-hour caching, and graceful partial failure where surviving criteria are still returned. It stops short of describing cost/latency or how warnings surface, but the added disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a second block that groups alternative routing, parameter rules and runtime behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the second paragraph is dense enough that a bulleted split would scan faster.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present the description need not describe return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. For an 8-parameter tool it still covers routing, the parameter exclusivity rule, defaults, and upstream failure behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies; the description earns above that by explaining the either/or semantics of region and usage_location plus the wide European default when neither is given, and by reinforcing the lifetime-vs-period meaning of duration_hours. It does not explain criteria codes or load_percent, which remain schema-only.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Estimate the environmental footprint of one cloud VM') and scopes it precisely to two impact families (embedded manufacturing share and use-phase electricity) with units, ranges and warnings. It is immediately distinguishable from compare_estimates and estimate_server, which are named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit routing: single instance here, compare_estimates to rank several, estimate_server for physical servers, search_catalog when the instance name is unknown. It also states the region vs usage_location mutual exclusivity, the fallback when neither is provided, and how to interpret or omit duration_hours.

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

Deploy Server