Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
iran-cloud-status-mcp

iran-cloud-status-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Compare prices for a size

cs_compare_prices
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare monthly server prices for a specified vCPU, RAM, and disk size at Hamravesh and Liara, returning matching or larger plans ordered by price ascending; traffic costs are excluded.

Instructions

Price one server size (vCPU, RAM, disk) per month at Hamravesh and Liara, cheapest first.

Liara: cheapest PaaS and IaaS plan at least that big. Traffic excluded; ArvanCloud and Chabokan not compared.

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": {
      "vcpu": "<vcpu>",
      "ram_gb": "<ram_gb>"
    },
    "name": "cs_compare_prices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vcpuYesvCPU cores needed, e.g. 2.
ram_gbYesRAM in GB needed, e.g. 4.
disk_gbNoSSD disk in GB needed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: Liara's price is for the cheapest plan at least as large as requested (rounding up), traffic costs are excluded, and results are ordered cheapest first. It does not say whether prices are live or cached, or how provider/currency is reported.

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?

Two sentences, no padding, with the core action and provider scope front-loaded before the caveats about traffic and omitted providers.

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 three-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers inputs, provider scope, and ordering. The main gap is the shape of the returned comparison (per-provider rows, matched plan names, currency), which the agent must discover by calling.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the useful framing that the three inputs are treated as one server size and that 'at least that big' matching applies, but nothing on units or rounding beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: price one server size (vCPU, RAM, disk) per month across two named providers, ordered cheapest first. That is far more precise than a generic pricing tool, though it never names the nearby cs_pricing sibling to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

The description implies usage (size-based comparison between Hamravesh and Liara) and clarifies that ArvanCloud and Chabokan are out of scope, but gives no explicit cue for when to choose this over cs_pricing or cs_providers, nor any prerequisites.

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