AWS FinOps 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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('analyze') without detailing what the tool does operationally: whether it fetches data, computes metrics, generates reports, or requires specific permissions. There's no mention of output format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core function. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.

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 (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to provide context on tool behavior, parameter meanings, or usage scenarios. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation support, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Parameters like 'region_name', 'period', and authentication fields ('profile_name', 'role_arn', etc.) are entirely unexplained, leaving their purposes and usage ambiguous.

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 'Analyze API Gateway performance metrics' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the resource (API Gateway) and general action (analyze performance metrics) but lacks specificity about what analysis entails or what metrics are examined. Compared to siblings like 'analyze_cloudfront_cache_hit_ratio' or 'analyze_dynamodb_throttling', it doesn't clearly differentiate its scope beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various analysis functions (e.g., cost analysis, performance insights), there's no indication of when API Gateway performance analysis is preferred over other tools or what problem it addresses specifically.

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