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 states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements (though parameters imply AWS credentials), potential costs (AWS API calls), rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or how results are structured beyond 'Dictionary with unused Elastic IPs'. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational implications.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The only minor improvement would be integrating the purpose more seamlessly with the parameter list, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain. It's minimally viable but could be more comprehensive.

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 explicitly lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies that parameters like 'profile_name', 'role_arn', and credential fields are optional and relate to AWS authentication. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., mutual exclusivity) or provide examples, preventing a perfect score.

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 specific action ('Find') and resource ('unattached Elastic IPs'), making the purpose immediately evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a specific AWS resource type (Elastic IPs) and state (unattached), 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for identifying unused Elastic IPs, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparison to other tools like cost optimization or security analysis tools in the sibling list. The description assumes the user already knows when this tool is appropriate.

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