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. The description only states what the tool does ('Find'), not how it behaves. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it scans all regions or just one, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place.

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. While the output schema may cover return values, the description doesn't address authentication needs, regional scoping, or behavioral traits. For a security-focused tool that likely requires specific AWS permissions and has operational implications, this minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about any parameters—it doesn't mention region selection, authentication methods (profile, role, keys), or how these affect the operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 EBS volumes without encryption enabled.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('EBS volumes') with a specific condition ('without encryption enabled'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_unencrypted_rds_instances' or 'find_unencrypted_s3_buckets' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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. There are many sibling tools for finding various AWS resources, but no indication of whether this is for security audits, compliance checks, or cost optimization. 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.