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 the tool 'finds' instances, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific AWS permissions, whether it scans all instances or uses filters, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 doesn't address authentication needs, regional scoping, or how the tool determines 'latest engine version'. While the output schema may cover return values, the description lacks context on operational behavior and parameter usage, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference.

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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 6 parameters (region_name, profile_name, role_arn, access_key, secret_access_key, session_token) and 0% schema description coverage, the schema only provides titles and types. The description doesn't explain what these parameters do, how they interact (e.g., authentication precedence), or why they're needed. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 RDS instances not running the latest engine version.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('RDS instances'), and criteria ('not running the latest engine version'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_outdated_ecs_platform_versions' or 'find_outdated_elasticache_engine_versions' beyond the RDS focus, which is implied but not contrasted.

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 (e.g., AWS credentials), context (e.g., cost optimization vs. security), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'analyze_rds_performance_insights' or 'find_underutilized_rds_instances'. 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.