Verda Cloud MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool returns 'Instance details and SSH connection info when ready' and that 'wait_for_ready' defaults to True, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like cost implications, spot instance reliability characteristics, permissions required, error handling, or what happens if spot capacity isn't available.

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

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

Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of deploying spot instances with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks important behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but critical operational details about spot instances are missing.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It explains each parameter's purpose, default behavior (e.g., 'default from config'), and practical implications (e.g., 'auto-generated if not provided'). This significantly compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Deploy a new spot GPU instance') with the resource type specified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_instance' or 'check_spot_availability' by focusing on deployment of spot instances with GPU capabilities.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'start_instance', 'check_spot_availability', and 'list_instances', there's no indication of when spot deployment is preferable or what prerequisites might be needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.