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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works—e.g., whether it scans all dashboards, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns a list or report, or what 'orphaned' means in practice. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity. Every word contributes directly to understanding what the tool does.

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 has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, parameter explanations, and usage context. While the output schema might cover return values, the description doesn't compensate for the gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool effectively or what to expect beyond the basic purpose.

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 parameter information beyond what the schema provides (only titles and types). It doesn't explain what 'region_name', 'period', or authentication parameters like 'profile_name' do in the context of finding orphaned dashboards, leaving parameters largely 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 dashboards with widgets referencing deleted resources.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('CloudWatch dashboards'), and scope ('with widgets referencing deleted resources'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_unused_cloudwatch_alarms' or 'find_unused_cloudwatch_log_groups', though the focus on 'orphaned' dashboards is distinct.

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, typical scenarios, or how it differs from other 'find' tools in the sibling list. Without any usage context, an agent must infer its application solely from the purpose statement.

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