AWS FinOps MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Find' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, what constitutes 'old generations', whether it scans all instances or filtered ones, or the output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't explain what 'old generations' means, how instances are identified, or provide any context about authentication/authorization despite having multiple credential parameters.

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?

The description provides no information about any of the 6 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of what region_name, profile_name, role_arn, access_key, secret_access_key, or session_token mean in this context.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'EC2 instances using previous generation instance types', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_overutilized_ec2_instances' or 'find_underutilized_ec2_instances', which target different optimization dimensions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it relates to sibling tools focused on EC2 optimization (e.g., cost, performance, or security tools).

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