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

iran-cloud-status-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Components of a provider

cs_components
Read-onlyIdempotent

List one provider's status components—services, regions, clusters, servers—with current status, and filter to issues to identify outages.

Instructions

List one provider's status components (services, regions, clusters, servers) with current status.

Names are as published (ArvanCloud English, Hamravesh and Chabokan Persian). Use cs_regions for one line per region.

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>"
    },
    "name": "cs_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMost components to list.
queryNoName or group contains this text (case-insensitive).
providerYesProvider id.
only_issuesNoOnly non-operational components.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond them: names are returned as published, meaning Persian output for Hamravesh and Chabokan and English for ArvanCloud, which materially affects how an agent should present or match results. It omits listing behavior such as default/max page size and whether results are truncated, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core capability front-loaded before the sibling routing note. Every clause earns its place, including the localization caveat, which is packed into a single compact sentence.

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 four-parameter read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, no output schema and clear annotations, the description supplies purpose, sibling routing and an output-content caveat. It is slightly thin on result shape and paging, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with limit, query, only_issues and the provider enum all documented inline, so the description does not need to explain them. The description's own text adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List one provider's status components') and enumerates the component types covered (services, regions, clusters, servers) with current status. It also names the overlapping sibling cs_regions and the boundary between them, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit routing rule: use cs_regions when you want one line per region rather than the per-component listing here. That is real when-to-use-the-other guidance. It stops short of a full 5 because it never states when not to use this tool at all (e.g. all-provider overviews belong to cs_status or cs_providers), leaving that inference to the agent.

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