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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works—such as whether it performs a read-only scan, requires specific AWS permissions, has rate limits, or returns structured data. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly answers 'what does this tool do?' in a clear and structured manner, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand immediately.

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 has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for output explanation in the description. However, the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral context makes it incomplete for effective use, especially since the schema provides no descriptions.

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 explain what 'region_name', 'profile_name', 'role_arn', etc., are used for or how they affect the tool's operation. This leaves the agent with no guidance beyond parameter names and types.

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 ('EC2 launch templates not used by any Auto Scaling Group or instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_unused_amis' or 'find_unused_security_groups' by focusing on launch templates specifically. It precisely defines what constitutes 'unused' in this context, which is critical for accurate tool selection.

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, prerequisites, or typical use cases. While the purpose is clear, it lacks context about when this tool is appropriate compared to other 'find_unused_' tools or broader cost optimization tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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