Novita MCP Server
OfficialServidor MCP de Novita
novita-mcp-server es un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) que proporciona una interacción fluida con los recursos de la plataforma Novita AI. Recomendamos acceder a este servidor a través de Claude Desktop , Cursor o cualquier otro cliente MCP compatible.
Características
Aviso de la versión beta :
novita-mcp-serverse encuentra actualmente en fase beta y solo admite la gestión de instancias de GPU. Se admitirán más tipos de recursos en futuras versiones.
Actualmente, novita-mcp-server permite la gestión de los recursos de las instancias de GPU del producto .
Las operaciones admitidas son las siguientes:
Clúster(/Región): Lista;
Producto: Lista;
Instancia de GPU: Listar, Obtener, Crear, Iniciar, Detener, Eliminar, Reiniciar;
Plantilla: Lista, Obtener, Crear, Eliminar;
Autorización de registro de contenedores: listar, crear, eliminar;
Almacenamiento en red: Listar, crear, actualizar, eliminar;
Related MCP server: Outsource MCP
Instalación
Puedes instalar el paquete usando npm o Smithery:
Usando npm
npm install -g @novitalabs/novita-mcp-serverUso de herrería
Visite https://smithery.ai/server/@novitalabs/novita-mcp-server y siga las instrucciones de "Instalar" para instalar el servidor.
Configuración para utilizar novita-mcp-server
Primero, debes obtener tu clave API de Novita desde Novita AI Key Management .
Y a continuación, puedes utilizar la siguiente configuración tanto para Claude Desktop como para Cursor:
📌 Consejos
Para Claude Desktop, puede consultar la guía de inicio rápido de Claude Desktop MCP para aprender a configurar el servidor MCP.
Para Cursor, puede consultar la guía de inicio rápido de Cursor MCP para aprender a configurar el servidor MCP.
{
"mcpServers": {
"@novitalabs/novita-mcp-server": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@novitalabs/novita-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"NOVITA_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}Ejemplos
A continuación se muestran algunos ejemplos de cómo utilizar novita-mcp-server para administrar sus recursos con Claude Desktop o Cursor:
Lista de clústeres
List all the Novita clustersLista de productos
List all available Novita GPU instance productsLista de instancias de GPU
List all my running Novita GPU instancesCrear una nueva instancia de GPU
Create a new Novita GPU instance:
Name: test-novita-mcp-server-01
Product: any available product
GPU Number: 1
Image: A standard public PyTorch/CUDA image
Container Disk: 60GBPruebas
Este proyecto utiliza Jest para las pruebas. Las pruebas se encuentran en el directorio src/ tests .
Puede ejecutar las pruebas utilizando uno de los siguientes comandos:
npm testAvailable Tools
20 toolscreate-container-registry-authD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the container registry auth. | |
| username | Yes | Registry username. | |
| password | Yes | Registry password. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create-gpu-instanceD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the instance. Must contain only numbers, letters, and hyphens | |
| productId | Yes | ID of the product used to deploy the instance. The availableGpuNumber of the product must be greater than 0. You can use the `list-products` tool to get or check the product ID if needed. Before calling the MCP tool, MUST show me the details of the product to help me identify it, including name, price, etc. | |
| kind | No | Type of the instance | gpu |
| gpuNum | Yes | Number of GPUs allocated to the instance. The availableGpuNumber of the product must be greater than or equal to the gpuNum. | |
| rootfsSize | Yes | Root filesystem size (container disk size) in GB. Free tier includes 60GB. | |
| imageUrl | Yes | Docker image URL to initialize the instance | |
| imageAuthId | No | ID of the container registry auth. Required only when the imageUrl is private. You can use the `list-container-registry-auths` tool to check the ID if you're not sure. | |
| command | No | Container start command to run when the instance starts | |
| ports | No | Ports to expose (e.g., '8888/http', '22/tcp'), separated by commas if multiple. Maximum of 10 ports. | |
| env | No | Environment variables | |
| networkStorages | No | Network storages to mount |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create-network-storageD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clusterId | Yes | The ID of the cluster to create network storage. Must be from the `list-clusters` tool result, and the cluster must have supportNetworkStorage set to true | |
| storageName | Yes | Name for the network storage. Use only letters, numbers, and hyphens | |
| storageSize | Yes | Size of the network storage in GB |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create-templateD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete-container-registry-authD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the container registry auth to delete. Please ensure it exists before deleting. Before calling the MCP tool, please show me the name to help identify it. You can use the `list-container-registry-auths` tool to check the ID if needed. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete-gpu-instanceD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | ID of the instance to delete. Before calling the MCP tool to delete the instance, MUST show me the details of the instance to help me identify it, including id, name, etc. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete-network-storageD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storageId | Yes | The unique ID of the network storage to delete. Please ensure it exists before updating. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete-templateD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templateId | Yes | ID of the template to delete. Please ensure it exists before deleting. Before calling the MCP tool, please show me the name to help identify it. You can use the `get-template` tool to check the ID if needed. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-gpu-instanceD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | ID of the instance to retrieve |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-templateD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templateId | Yes | ID of the template to retrieve |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list-clustersD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list-container-registry-authsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list-gpu-instancesD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | Number of instances to return, | |
| pageNumber | No | Page number to return, start from | |
| name | No | Filter by the instance name | |
| productName | No | Filter by the product name | |
| status | No | Filter by the instance status |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list-network-storageD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageNo | No | Page number | |
| pageSize | No | Page size | |
| storageName | No | Name for the network storage | |
| storageId | No | ID for the network storage |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list-productsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clusterId | No | ID of the cluster to list products from. You can use the `list-clusters` tool to get the cluster ID. | |
| productName | No | Name of the product to filter by. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list-templatesD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | Number of templates to return in each page | |
| pageNum | No | Page number to return, start from 1 | |
| type | No | Type of template to return | |
| channel | No | Channels of template to return |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
restart-gpu-instanceD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | ID of the instance to restart. Before calling the MCP tool to restart the instance, MUST show me the details of the instance to help me identify it, including id, name, etc. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
start-gpu-instanceD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | ID of the instance to start |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stop-gpu-instanceD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | ID of the instance to stop. Before calling the MCP tool to stop the instance, MUST show me the details of the instance to help me identify it, including id, name, etc. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update-network-storageD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storageId | Yes | The unique ID of the network storage to update. Please ensure it exists before updating. | |
| storageName | No | New name for the network storage. This is optional, if not provided, the name will not be changed. Use only letters, numbers, and hyphens | |
| storageSize | Yes | New size in GB (must be larger than current size). You can use the `list-network-storage` tool to get the current size if you don't know it. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- Changed
list-clusters1 field changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false
- Changed
list-container-registry-auths1 field changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false
20 tool updates
- First observed
create-container-registry-auth - First observed
create-gpu-instance - First observed
create-network-storage - First observed
create-template - First observed
delete-container-registry-auth - First observed
delete-gpu-instance - First observed
delete-network-storage - First observed
delete-template - First observed
get-gpu-instance - First observed
get-template - First observed
list-clusters - First observed
list-container-registry-auths - First observed
list-gpu-instances - First observed
list-network-storage - First observed
list-products - First observed
list-templates - First observed
restart-gpu-instance - First observed
start-gpu-instance - First observed
stop-gpu-instance - First observed
update-network-storage
TDQS
Scored across 20 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions. The naming convention makes it easy to differentiate between operations on different resource types like GPU instances, templates, network storage, and container registry auths. There is no ambiguity about which tool to use for a given task.
Tool names follow a perfectly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using snake_case uniformly. The pattern is clear: action_resource (e.g., create_gpu_instance, list_templates, delete_network_storage). This consistency makes the tool set highly predictable and easy to navigate.
With 20 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a cloud infrastructure server covering multiple resource types. It provides comprehensive operations for GPU instances, templates, network storage, and container registry auths, though it might feel a bit heavy compared to more focused servers.
The tool set offers good CRUD/lifecycle coverage for its domain, with create, delete, list, and specific operations like start/stop/restart for GPU instances. Minor gaps exist, such as missing update operations for GPU instances and templates, but agents can work around these with the available tools.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for OpenAI API (chat completions, image generation, embeddings) via AceDataCloud
Hosted Amazon Seller and Vendor MCP server for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Codex, Gemini, Copilot.
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA proxy server that unifies multiple MCP servers, enabling seamless tool, prompt, and resource management via the MetaMCP App.26 npm155Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI applications to access 20+ model providers (including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) through a unified interface for text and image generation.230MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for AI-powered image, audio, and video generation, enabling media creation directly from Claude, Cursor, and other MCP clients.1139 npmMIT

RunComfy MCPofficial
AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceOfficial remote MCP server for RunComfy. 31 tools across three products: Serverless API (ComfyUI) deployment management and async inference, Model API hosted-model inference, and Trainer API LoRA training jobs.311MIT