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. It discloses behavioral traits by detailing what 'no activity' means (e.g., 'no active services, tasks, or scheduled tasks' for clusters, 'zero running tasks and no recent CloudWatch activity' for services), which adds context beyond the basic function. However, it does not cover other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by bullet points detailing the inactivity criteria. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains the inactivity detection logic well, which is crucial for understanding the tool's behavior. However, with 0% schema coverage and no parameter explanations, it lacks details needed for full contextual understanding, though the output schema may mitigate some gaps in return values.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only mentions the 'period' parameter implicitly ('specified period') and does not explain any of the 7 parameters, such as 'region_name', 'profile_name', or authentication-related ones. This leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 clusters and services with no activity in the specified period.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('ECS clusters and services'), and scope ('no activity in the specified period'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on ECS resources and inactivity detection, unlike other tools that analyze performance, compliance, or other resource types.

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 implies usage by specifying the period parameter and inactivity criteria, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'no activity' as the trigger, which provides some context, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'find_underutilized_ecs_services' or 'find_outdated_ecs_platform_versions'.

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