AWS FinOps MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but doesn't mention whether it requires AWS authentication, how it handles errors, if it makes API calls, or any rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters (mostly auth-related), 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the auth complexity.

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 (6 auth/region parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context (auth requirements, error handling) that would be needed for safe invocation.

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 explicitly lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'AWS region to filter recommendations'), adding crucial meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't provide format examples or detailed constraints.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('RDS instance cost optimization recommendations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_cost_optimization_ec2' or 'get_all_cost_optimization_recommendations' by focusing specifically on RDS instances.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_cost_optimization_recommendations' (which might include RDS) or 'find_underutilized_rds_instances' (which might overlap). The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparison with siblings.

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