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 mentions the tool finds clusters with low CPU utilization but fails to describe key behaviors: whether it's a read-only operation, how it handles authentication (implied by parameters but not stated), potential rate limits, or what the output includes (though an output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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 complexity of 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and authentication context. While an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough guidance for effective tool invocation in a real-world scenario.

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 information about any of the 7 parameters, which have 0% schema description coverage. It does not explain what 'region_name', 'period', or authentication parameters like 'profile_name' mean in context, nor how they affect the search. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('find') and resource ('ElastiCache clusters'), and includes a precise criterion ('low CPU utilization (<20%)'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'find_overutilized_elasticache_clusters' by focusing on underutilization rather than overutilization.

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, such as other underutilized resource tools (e.g., 'find_underutilized_ec2_instances') or related tools like 'find_overutilized_elasticache_clusters'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, offering only the basic functionality.

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