Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Code Gym AWS Emulator MCP

Code Gym AWS Emulator MCP

by B11-Health
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

emulator_identity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify the local AWS emulator runs under isolated STS account 000000000000 to confirm sandbox identity without an AWS account.

Instructions

Verify isolated STS account 000000000000

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "emulator_identity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0-beta.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds only the fact that the target account is the isolated sandbox account 000000000000, which is useful context for confirming isolation. It says nothing about what a successful or failed verification looks like, which is the behavior an agent most needs here.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with zero padding, and the identifying detail (the account number) is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but no wording is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema is empty and there is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what this call returns and how to interpret success versus failure. It conveys the account identity but not the result shape or error semantics, leaving a real gap for a zero-argument verification tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb ("Verify") and a resource ("isolated STS account 000000000000"), which gives some concrete grounding. But "verify" is ambiguous about what is checked or returned, and the description does nothing to distinguish this from diagnostic siblings such as emulator_doctor, emulator_health, emulator_self_test, or emulator_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling diagnostic tools an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer that this is a connectivity/identity smoke test from the words "verify" and "isolated" alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools