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

iran-cloud-status-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Providers and coverage

cs_providers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists which Iranian cloud providers are covered, what status or pricing data each publishes, and which providers are missing. Use it to check coverage before querying status or price data.

Instructions

List the providers covered, what each publishes, and which are not covered.

No network calls.

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": "cs_providers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them ("No network calls"), implying a local/static answer with low latency, and it sketches the returned content (providers, what each publishes, uncovered ones). Minor gap: slight tension with openWorldHint=true, and no note on freshness of the provider list.

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, front-loaded with the listing verb and the three things returned, followed by the operational caveat. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the call returns well enough to use it correctly. It stops short of describing the shape/ordering of results or how coverage gaps are represented, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 a specific verb ("List") and resource ("the providers covered"), and further specifies the payload: what each publishes and which are not covered. That is clearly distinct from siblings like cs_status, cs_components, and cs_incidents, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: the wording suggests this is a discovery/reference call an agent makes before querying provider-specific data. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling tool as an alternative.

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