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 full burden. While it mentions the tool 'finds' unused security groups and describes the return format, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it makes API calls that could incur costs, or how it handles pagination beyond the max_results parameter.

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. Each sentence earns its place, though the parameter documentation is somewhat verbose. The purpose statement is front-loaded, making the tool's function immediately clear.

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 (7 parameters, AWS integration) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well and mentions the return format, but lacks behavioral context about AWS permissions, cost implications, and operational considerations that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting all 7 parameters with clear explanations of their purpose. It provides default values, optional status, and meaningful context for each parameter, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples of valid values.

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 with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('security groups not attached to any resources'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_overly_permissive_security_groups' which has a different focus. The title is null, so the description fully carries the purpose definition.

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. While sibling tools include various AWS analysis tools, there's no mention of when this specific security group analysis is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to other security-related tools in the list.

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