AWS FinOps MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'no query activity' which implies read-only analysis, but doesn't specify whether this tool requires specific AWS permissions, how it determines 'no activity' (e.g., time period defaults), what the output format is, or whether it has any side effects. The description is too minimal 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 incomplete. While the output schema may cover return values, the description doesn't address authentication requirements, time period interpretation, or behavioral characteristics. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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. It mentions 'no query activity' which relates to the 'period' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'period' means (days? hours?), what the default 90 represents, or how the other 6 authentication/configuration parameters should be used. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 Route53 hosted zones with no query activity.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('Route53 hosted zones'), and criteria ('with no query activity'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_unused_cloudfront_distributions' or 'find_unused_s3_buckets' beyond the resource type.

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, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools for finding unused resources, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool over others.

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