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 the tool 'finds' snapshots (implying a read-only operation) and describes the return format, but lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it performs destructive actions. The description is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and AWS integration.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for arguments and returns. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though the parameter list is lengthy but necessary. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 (8 parameters, AWS integration) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format, though it lacks behavioral details like authentication or error handling, which are important for AWS tools.

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 provides detailed parameter documentation beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. Each parameter is listed with clear explanations (e.g., 'Minimum age in days for snapshot to be considered unused', 'AWS profile name (optional)'), adding significant semantic value that the schema alone does not provide.

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 EBS snapshots') and the precise criteria ('not associated with any AMI or volume'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_unused_volumes' or 'find_unused_amis' which target different AWS resources. The purpose is unambiguous and resource-specific.

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 for identifying unused snapshots based on age and association status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_unused_volumes' or 'find_unused_amis') or any prerequisites. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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