AWS FinOps MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works: no information about authentication requirements (despite 6 auth-related parameters), rate limits, whether it's read-only or destructive, what the output contains, or how it determines 'deprecated/outdated' status. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this level of complexity and gets straight to the point.

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?

While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description is incomplete for a tool with 6 undocumented authentication parameters and no behavioral context. For a tool that likely requires AWS authentication and makes API calls, the description should at minimum mention authentication requirements or refer to the parameters. The current description leaves too many open questions for proper use.

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 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides zero information about any parameters, not even mentioning that authentication parameters exist. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented, which is inadequate given the parameter count and complexity.

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 ('Lambda functions with deprecated or outdated runtimes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., 'find_underutilized_lambda_functions') by focusing on runtime versions rather than utilization, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'analyze_lambda_cold_starts'.

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, timing considerations, or how it differs from other lambda-related tools in the sibling list. 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.