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. It states the tool finds outdated services but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'find'), requires AWS authentication (hinted by parameters but not explained), returns a list or report format, has rate limits, or handles pagination. For a tool with 6 authentication parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 a simple find operation. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (6 auth parameters, AWS context) and the presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on authentication, usage, and behavioral details. With no annotations and poor parameter coverage, it's adequate but has clear gaps for an AWS tool.

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 only titles and types. The description adds no parameter information—it doesn't explain what 'region_name', 'profile_name', or other AWS auth parameters mean, their defaults, or how they interact. With 6 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ECS services not using the latest platform version.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('ECS services'), and criteria ('not using the latest platform version'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_outdated_eks_cluster_versions' or 'find_outdated_elasticache_engine_versions' 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, context (e.g., cost optimization, security compliance), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'find_old_ecs_task_definitions' or 'find_underutilized_ecs_services'. 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.