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 the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: polling behavior ('Polls... until a spot becomes available'), default values, and conditional actions based on 'auto_deploy'. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens if 'max_checks' is reached without availability, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, behavioral explanation, parameter details, and return info. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool, though the parameter section is lengthy but necessary. Minor redundancy in 'default from config' could be streamlined.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and returns. However, it could improve by addressing missing behavioral aspects like error handling or polling constraints, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all 7 parameters, including purpose, defaults, and conditional relevance (e.g., 'volume_id' and 'script_id' only if 'auto_deploy' is True). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Monitor for spot GPU availability and optionally auto-deploy when available.' It specifies the verb ('monitor'), resource ('spot GPU availability'), and optional action ('auto-deploy'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_spot_availability' (which likely checks once) and 'deploy_spot_instance' (which deploys without monitoring).

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?

The description implies usage context: monitoring for availability with optional deployment. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_spot_availability' or 'deploy_spot_instance', but the monitoring aspect is clear. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, keeping it at a 4.

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