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 resources but doesn't mention what types of resources it covers, whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific AWS permissions, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. While the output schema may handle return values, the description doesn't address key aspects like resource scope, authentication requirements, or behavioral traits. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, more context is needed to guide 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?

The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's in the schema. With 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema only provides titles and types. The description doesn't explain what 'required_tags' should contain, how 'region_name' affects the search, or the purpose of authentication parameters like 'profile_name' and 'role_arn'. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 AWS resources missing required tags.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource type ('AWS resources'), and condition ('missing required tags'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_tag_compliance' or other 'find_' tools, 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. With many sibling tools focused on AWS resource analysis (e.g., 'analyze_tag_compliance', 'find_public_s3_buckets'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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