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 the tool 'gets' recommendations (implying a read-only operation) and mentions AWS authentication parameters, but doesn't clarify critical behaviors like whether it requires specific IAM permissions, if it makes API calls to AWS, what the rate limits might be, or if it's a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then lists parameters with brief explanations, and ends with return information. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed. It's front-loaded with the main 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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters, and the output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain returns. However, for a tool with AWS authentication and no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., permission requirements, safety). It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'AWS region to filter recommendations'), which adds meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage and only provides titles like 'Region Name'). However, the explanations are minimal and don't provide detailed semantics like format examples, dependencies between parameters, or how authentication parameters interact. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates somewhat but not fully.

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: 'Get EBS volume cost optimization recommendations.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('EBS volume cost optimization recommendations'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_optimization_ec2' or 'get_all_cost_optimization_recommendations', which would be needed for 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. There are many sibling tools for cost optimization and analysis (e.g., 'get_cost_optimization_ec2', 'get_all_cost_optimization_recommendations'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain when this specific EBS-focused tool is appropriate. It only lists parameters without context.

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