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

iran-cloud-status-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Public cloud prices

cs_pricing
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a provider's public price list in Toman from Liara, Hamravesh, or Chabokan pricing pages, with optional Liara product filtering for plan and unit cost checks.

Instructions

Show a provider's public price list in Toman, read from its own pricing page.

Liara: fixed plans per product; Hamravesh: per-unit prices (Iran and Germany); Chabokan: starting prices. Use cs_compare_prices to price one server size.

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_pricing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
productNoLiara only: PaaS, DBaaS, IaaS, WordPress, Email, AI or ObjectStorage (default all).
providerYesProvider id; ArvanCloud prices are not readable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description only needs marginal additions — and it supplies useful ones: prices are in Toman, come from the provider's own live page, and differ structurally per provider (Liara fixed plans, Hamravesh per-unit with Iran/Germany split, Chabokan only starting prices). The Chabokan note usefully warns that figures may be partial rather than exact. It does not mention staleness or failure modes when the source page is unreachable.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and source before provider-specific detail and the sibling hand-off. The final line 'Chabokan: starting prices' is a telegraphic fragment, but it still carries real information rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does so at a high level: a price list in Toman, with per-provider structure differences spelled out. For a two-parameter, read-only, annotated tool this is nearly sufficient; only currency-vs-unit ambiguity for the per-unit providers is left implicit.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the provider enum and the ArvanCloud exclusion. The description adds only indirect meaning: 'fixed plans per product' hints that the product parameter matters mainly for Liara, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Show a provider's public price list in Toman') and immediately scopes the source ('read from its own pricing page'). The per-provider clause then tells the agent what shape the result takes for each of the three providers, which no sibling does.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for narrow lookups: 'Use cs_compare_prices to price one server size.' That is a named alternative plus the condition selecting it. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool for other purposes (e.g. historic pricing or availability), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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