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 return format ('List of dictionaries with cost optimization recommendations by resource type') which is helpful, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, scope clarification, parameter documentation, and return format - all in minimal sentences. Every section earns its place without redundancy, and information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job documenting parameters and return format. However, for a tool that interacts with AWS Cost Optimization Hub, it could better address authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but operational context is light.

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 fully compensates by documenting all 6 parameters with clear explanations of what each represents (e.g., 'AWS region to filter recommendations', 'IAM role ARN to assume'). It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter purposes immediately understandable.

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 ('Get all cost optimization recommendations') and resource ('from AWS Cost Optimization Hub'), with explicit scope ('all resource types (19 types total)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being comprehensive rather than analyzing specific resource types or generating reports.

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 context by specifying it returns recommendations for all resource types, suggesting it's for broad cost optimization overviews. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. more specific sibling tools like get_cost_optimization_ec2 or get_savings_plans_recommendations, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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