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

Code Gym AWS Emulator MCP

by B11-Health
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sqs_create_queue

Create an emulated SQS standard queue in the local AWS sandbox so you can test queue-based workflows without an AWS account.

Instructions

Create emulated SQS standard queue

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "queue": "<queue>"
    },
    "name": "sqs_create_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queueYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0-beta.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's only contribution is the word 'emulated'. It never addresses the critical behavior implied by idempotentHint=false: whether creating an existing queue name fails, returns the existing queue, or duplicates it. No return value or side-effect detail is given.

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 front-loaded phrase with no filler; nothing is redundant. It is terse to the point of being telegraphic, but the size is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a one-param, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description should at minimum define what 'queue' is and what the caller gets back (queue URL?) to chain into send/receive. With zero schema coverage and no output schema, those gaps leave the agent guessing at the most basic invocation details.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'queue' is undocumented in the schema. The description does not say whether it is a name, ARN, or URL, nor any naming constraints, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Specific verb+resource ('Create ... SQS standard queue') with a useful qualifier that limits scope to standard queues, distinguishing it from sqs_delete_queue and sqs_list_queues. It stops short of naming siblings or stating scope beyond the queue type.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions (e.g., must the emulator be running?), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the setup step preceding sqs_send_message / sqs_receive_messages.

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