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 and does well by specifying the CPU threshold (≥80%), lookback period concept, and return format. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (though parameters hint at it), rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation, or how the tool interacts with AWS APIs.

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 perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, followed by clearly labeled 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The parameter documentation is organized efficiently with just the essential details for each.

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 output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, all parameters, and return format. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context about AWS authentication flows and performance characteristics. The output schema existence reduces the need to fully document return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear documentation for all 8 parameters, including their purposes, defaults, and optional status. It adds significant value beyond the bare schema by explaining what each parameter means (e.g., 'Lookback period in days', 'AWS profile name', 'IAM role ARN to assume').

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('RDS instances'), including the exact threshold for 'high CPU utilization' (≥80%). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_rds_performance_insights' and 'find_underutilized_rds_instances' by focusing specifically on overutilization detection.

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 CPU threshold and parameters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_rds_performance_insights' or 'find_underutilized_rds_instances'. It provides parameter defaults which offer some guidance, but lacks explicit 'when/when-not' statements or sibling tool comparisons.

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