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: it doesn't mention authentication requirements (implied by AWS credential parameters), rate limits, whether it's read-only or destructive, output format, or error handling. For a tool with 7 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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple find operation. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and criterion without redundancy.

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, AWS integration) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication, time period interpretation, output structure (though an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at it), or error cases. For a tool in a cost-optimization context with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. With 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no parameter details in the description, the agent must rely solely on schema property names and types. The description doesn't explain what 'period' means, how credentials are used, or default behaviors, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 SQS queues with no messages sent or received.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('SQS queues') with a clear criterion ('no messages sent or received'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_unused_s3_buckets' or 'find_unused_lambda_functions' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 (e.g., AWS credentials), context for 'unused' (e.g., time period implied by parameters but not stated), or comparisons to other cost-optimization tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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