Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-elasticache-ops

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Node Cluster

node_cluster
Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect Redis/Valkey cluster mode: returns CLUSTER INFO, slots per primary, and CLUSTER SHARDS; reports when cluster mode is disabled.

Instructions

Cluster-mode view: CLUSTER INFO, slots per primary and CLUSTER SHARDS when available. Reports cluster mode disabled otherwise.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "node_cluster"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the non-cluster fallback ('Reports cluster mode disabled otherwise') and the conditional 'when available' for CLUSTER SHARDS, which hints at version-dependence.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence that states the payload first and the edge-case fallback last, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a no-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what will be returned and how it behaves outside cluster mode. Return-value formatting is rightly left to the output schema, leaving only sibling differentiation as an omission.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly says nothing about inputs; there is nothing to mis-specify. Baseline 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names the specific resource and what it reports: CLUSTER INFO, slots per primary, and CLUSTER SHARDS. The scope ('cluster-mode view') is clear enough for an agent to know this is cluster-topology output rather than node-level stats, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like node_cluster_health or node_cluster_nodes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by 'cluster-mode view' and the mode-disabled fallback; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over node_cluster_health or node_cluster_nodes. The agent must infer the selection criteria from sibling names.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools