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. The description states it 'finds' endpoints with no connections, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what the output format is, whether there are rate limits, or how 'no connections' is determined. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence: 'Find VPC Endpoints with no connections in the specified period.' Every word earns its place, clearly stating the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 has 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may cover return values, the description doesn't address the behavioral aspects (permissions, rate limits, how 'unused' is determined) or explain the numerous authentication and configuration parameters. For a tool with this complexity, the description should do more.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'specified period' which loosely relates to the 'period' parameter, but doesn't explain any of the other 7 parameters (region_name, max_results, profile_name, role_arn, access_key, secret_access_key, session_token). With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by providing meaningful parameter semantics.

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 VPC Endpoints with no connections in the specified period.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('VPC Endpoints'), and scope ('with no connections in the specified period'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_unused_cloudfront_distributions' or 'find_unused_load_balancers' beyond the resource type, so it doesn't reach the highest 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, related tools, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate. While the purpose is clear, there's no explicit usage context or exclusions provided.

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