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 services with low utilization but doesn't describe how it works (e.g., uses CloudWatch metrics, scans all services in a region), what it returns (e.g., list of service ARNs, utilization percentages), or any side effects (e.g., read-only, requires permissions). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple find operation, though it could benefit from additional context given the complexity implied by the parameters.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter roles, authentication needs, how the 20% threshold is applied, or what the output contains. For a tool that likely interacts with AWS ECS and CloudWatch, more context is needed for effective 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 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters—it doesn't mention region, period, authentication fields (profile_name, role_arn, access_key, etc.), or how they affect the search. This leaves all parameters undocumented, which is a critical gap.

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 ECS services with low CPU and memory utilization (<20%).' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('ECS services'), and criteria ('low CPU and memory utilization <20%'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_underutilized_ec2_instances' or 'find_unused_ecs_clusters_and_services' beyond the resource type.

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 setup), timing considerations, or how it differs from other 'find_underutilized_' or 'find_unused_' tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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