@gnaws/mcp

Detect Unused Resources

detect

Identify structurally unused or orphaned resources in a loaded AWS resource graph. Optionally export findings as JSON or Markdown for review.

Instructions

Detect structurally unused/orphaned resources in the loaded graph. Requires 'scan' or 'load' to be called first. Optionally export findings to a file (.json or .md).

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": "detect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`outputPath`	No	Optional path to write findings (.json or .md). If omitted, returns findings as text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Since there are no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool operates on a 'loaded graph', requires prior commands, and optionally exports to file. It does not describe error behavior or performance characteristics, but for a detection tool these are reasonable gaps. The file format details (.json or .md) are a nice touch.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The prerequisite condition is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple detection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisite, and output format. It could mention what happens if the graph is empty or what 'unused/orphaned' means exactly, but the title helps clarify.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one well-described parameter. The description reiterates the purpose of outputPath (optional export vs. returning text). This matches the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic nuance beyond the schema is provided.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The title 'Detect Unused Resources' combined with description 'Detect structurally unused/orphaned resources in the loaded graph' provides a specific verb–resource pair. It clearly states the scope (loaded graph) and distinguishes from siblings like 'scan' (which loads data) and 'export' (which exports already-known data).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires scan or load to be called first.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to choose this over checking resource status via 'status' or 'regions', leaving a slight gap.

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

Deploy Server