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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works: whether it's a read-only scan, requires specific AWS permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with 6 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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool purpose statement and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it highly efficient in structure.

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 annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It states the purpose but doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral expectations, or how results are returned. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still cover operational context given the parameter-heavy nature.

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 mentions no parameters at all, while the input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. Parameters like 'region_name', 'profile_name', 'role_arn', and authentication keys are completely undocumented in the description, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 resource ('EKS clusters not running the latest Kubernetes version'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_outdated_ecs_platform_versions' or 'find_outdated_rds_engine_versions' beyond the resource type, missing specific sibling distinction.

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, prerequisites, or context. It lacks any mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to other 'find_outdated_' tools or general AWS analysis tools in the sibling list, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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