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. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly (finding vs modifying) and mentions AWS authentication parameters, but lacks details on rate limits, permissions needed, error handling, or what 'unused' means beyond attachment status. It adds some context but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, but the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., repeating 'AWS' for multiple parameters). It's appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description does well: it explains all parameters and states the return type. However, it lacks behavioral context like authentication requirements or result interpretation, leaving some gaps despite the output schema.

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 fully. It provides clear explanations for all 7 parameters, including optional/default status and purpose (e.g., 'AWS region name', 'Maximum results to return', 'AWS profile name (optional)'). This adds significant meaning 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 specific action ('Find EBS volumes that are not attached to any instance'), identifies the resource (EBS volumes), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on attachment status rather than encryption, type, or other attributes. It uses a precise verb ('Find') and resource specification.

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 like 'find_unencrypted_ebs_volumes' or 'find_ebs_volumes_with_old_types'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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