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 the tool 'Find[s] EC2 instances' and describes the return format ('Dictionary with overutilized EC2 instances'), but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or destructive, or how it handles errors. The description adds basic context but misses critical behavioral traits for an AWS tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for arguments and returns. It uses bullet-like formatting for parameters, which aids readability. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating some parameter details more tightly, and the sentence structure is straightforward but not overly verbose.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return format, and the output schema likely details the return structure, reducing the need for more in the description. However, it lacks behavioral context like authentication requirements or error handling, which would enhance completeness 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?

The description provides detailed parameter information beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'AWS region name', 'Lookback period in days', 'Maximum results to return'), including defaults and optional status. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all nuances like parameter interactions or validation rules.

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 with specific verbs ('Find EC2 instances') and resource ('EC2 instances'), including the exact criteria ('high CPU or memory utilization (≥80%)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_underutilized_ec2_instances' by focusing on overutilization rather than underutilization, making the distinction explicit.

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 implies usage context through the mention of 'high CPU or memory utilization (≥80%)' and the lookback period, suggesting it's for performance monitoring. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_underutilized_ec2_instances' or other analysis tools), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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