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 validation across multiple services but doesn't describe what 'orphaned' means operationally (e.g., alarms that reference deleted resources), whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or how results are returned. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds specific context about validation scope. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It clearly defines the tool's purpose and scope but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still address more of the operational context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters—it doesn't explain what 'region_name', 'max_results', or authentication parameters like 'profile_name' and 'role_arn' are for. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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: 'Find CloudWatch alarms not associated with any active AWS resources.' This is a specific verb ('find') + resource ('orphaned CloudWatch alarms') combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_unused_cloudwatch_alarms' (which likely finds alarms that aren't triggering) and 'find_orphaned_cloudwatch_dashboards' (which focuses on dashboards rather than alarms).

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 by listing the AWS services it validates against (EC2, RDS, ECS, etc.), suggesting it's for cross-service resource validation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_unused_cloudwatch_alarms' or other sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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