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

iran-cloud-status-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Status per region

cs_regions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarizes cloud provider status by region or group, including component counts, worst status, and non-operational services; filter by provider or region name.

Instructions

Summarise status per region or group: component count, worst status and what is not operational.

Groups are the provider's own (ArvanCloud regions, Hamravesh clusters, Chabokan categories, Mihan server types). Next: cs_components for members, cs_incidents for what happened.

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_regions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoRegion name contains this text, e.g. 'simin'.
providerNoOne provider; leave out for all that support this tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety information. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the result is a per-region or per-group summary with component counts, worst status, and non-operational items. It does not discuss pagination or response limitations, but with the supplied annotations the bar is lower.

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?

The description is three compact sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose and summary contents are front-loaded, followed by a clarification of groups and then next-step tool routing. Each sentence contributes distinct information.

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 read-only summary tool with only two schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It explains the summary dimensions, provider-specific grouping, and sibling tools for follow-up. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly contrasting with cs_status, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the query and provider parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that groups are provider-specific (e.g., ArvanCloud regions, Hamravesh clusters), which helps an agent understand how the provider parameter affects grouping. It adds less for the query parameter, but overall it improves parameter meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Summarise status per region or group.' It further names exactly what the summary contains (component count, worst status, what is not operational), so an agent knows the output shape. It also distinguishes its scope from cs_components and cs_incidents by assigning those tools to member details and incident history.

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?

The description gives clear follow-up routing: use cs_components for members and cs_incidents for what happened. This tells an agent when this summary tool is the entry point and when the next tools are appropriate. It does not explicitly compare itself against cs_status, so the when-not-to-use guidance is slightly incomplete.

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