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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs analysis, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, how it handles authentication, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description is too brief to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity and completeness.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the analysis scope, output format, or parameter usage, leaving significant gaps. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to provide enough context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the six parameters (e.g., region_name, profile_name, role_arn, access_key, secret_access_key, session_token), their purposes, or how they affect the analysis. This leaves parameters undocumented and unclear to the agent.

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 states the tool's purpose as analyzing Reserved Instance utilization and coverage, which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (Reserved Instances) but lacks details on what analysis entails or what specific metrics are examined. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Reserved Instances, but doesn't explain how it differs from similar tools like 'get_reserved_instance_recommendations'.

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, such as needing AWS credentials, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_reserved_instance_recommendations' for decision-making. Without this context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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