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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Node Cluster Nodes

node_cluster_nodes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Parses Redis/Valkey CLUSTER NODES output into per-shard primary and replica endpoints, slot counts, and failing nodes. Shows how to target each shard via ELASTICACHE_HOST for diagnosis.

Instructions

CLUSTER NODES parsed into per-shard primary/replica endpoints, slot counts and failing nodes, plus how to target each shard with ELASTICACHE_HOST.

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_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the parsed result includes failing nodes and shard targeting details, but does not discuss auth, rate limits, or cluster-mode prerequisites.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the command and result; no redundant wording. It is terse but not under-specified for the return content.

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 no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the definition is sufficiently complete. The only notable omission is usage guidance, which is scored separately.

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 no parameters, so the schema has nothing to document; the baseline for zero parameters is a 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning here.

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?

The description names the CLUSTER NODES command and the concrete outputs: per-shard primary/replica endpoints, slot counts and failing nodes. It is specific about the resource and result, though it does not contrast with siblings such as node_cluster or node_cluster_health.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It explains how to target each shard with ELASTICACHE_HOST, which is output-oriented, but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus node_cluster, node_cluster_health or related node tools. No exclusions or alternatives appear.

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