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' instances, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific AWS permissions, whether it's safe to run (e.g., no side effects), or what the output format is. For a security-focused tool with zero 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 waste: 'Find RDS instances without encryption enabled.' It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (security tool with AWS integration), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. However, an output schema exists, which may document return values, reducing the burden on the description. The description covers the core purpose but misses critical context like parameter usage, behavioral traits, and guidelines.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain what 'region_name', 'profile_name', or other AWS credential parameters mean or how they affect the tool's behavior, leaving them entirely unexplained.

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 RDS instances without encryption enabled.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('RDS instances'), and criteria ('without encryption enabled'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'find_unencrypted_ebs_volumes' 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., AWS credentials), context (e.g., security audits), or exclusions (e.g., what types of RDS instances are excluded). With many sibling tools for cost optimization and security analysis, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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