Manage AWS CloudFormation stacks to deploy and update infrastructure resources. Use this tool to create, update, delete, or list stacks with specified templates and parameters.
Manage AWS CloudFormation stacks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| region | Yes | ||
| stackName | No | ||
| templateBody | No | ||
| templateUrl | No | ||
| parameters | No | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| tags | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but there's no information about permissions required, whether operations are destructive, rate limits, error handling, or what 'manage' actually does behaviorally. The description doesn't explain what happens during create/update/delete actions or any side effects.
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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is optimal for its length.
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?
For a complex tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't provide enough information for an agent to understand what the tool actually does, how to use it properly, or what to expect from it. The three-word description is inadequate given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting documentation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'action' values mean, what 'capabilities' are for, how 'parameters' and 'tags' should be structured, or the relationship between 'templateBody' and 'templateUrl'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 'Manage AWS CloudFormation stacks' states the general purpose (verb+resource) but is vague about what 'manage' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its many AWS siblings (like aws_ec2, aws_s3) beyond mentioning CloudFormation specifically. The description is functional but lacks specificity about the scope of management operations.
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. There's no mention of when to choose CloudFormation over sibling tools like terraform or run_playbook, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description offers no usage boundaries or comparison with other infrastructure-as-code options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.