cloud-finops-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Browse the cloud waste runbooks

list_playbooks

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all cloud waste runbooks available for AWS, Azure and GCP to see which idle, orphaned or overprovisioned resource patterns already have a fix.

Instructions

See every ready-made runbook for finding and fixing cloud waste: idle, orphaned and overprovisioned resources, egress surprises, schedule blindness and AI/ML inefficiency across AWS, Azure and GCP.

Use this to discover which waste patterns have a runbook. When the
question already names a provider, waste category, or confidence tier,
call ``find_playbooks`` instead.

Each playbook is a small (~90-170 line) runbook scoped to one waste
pattern (e.g. ``aws-zombie-nat-gateway``, ``azure-orphan-disks``). Returns
``{"playbooks": [...], "total": N}`` where each entry includes ``name``,
``title``, ``scope`` (aws/azure/gcp/cross-cloud), ``service``,
``waste_category``, ``confidence`` (obvious/likely/possible), and
``approx_tokens`` - the same size hint the reference listing carries, so a
multi-playbook answer can be budgeted before fetching.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: each playbook is a small (~90-170 line) runbook, entries carry a confidence tier and an approx_tokens size hint explicitly framed for budgeting a multi-playbook answer before fetching. That is useful operational detail not present in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then return shape - a sensible order with no filler. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary given an output schema exists, but every section carries substance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-param, read-only enumeration tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is listed, when to prefer the sibling, entry granularity, and the size hint for budgeting. Nothing material is missing.

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 per the baseline this is a 4. No argument syntax needs explaining and the description correctly spends no space on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('See every ready-made runbook for finding and fixing cloud waste') and enumerates the concrete scope (idle, orphaned, overprovisioned, egress, schedule blindness, AI/ML across AWS/Azure/GCP). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling find_playbooks, so an agent can pick it apart without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('discover which waste patterns have a runbook') and an explicit when-not plus the alternative ('When the question already names a provider, waste category, or confidence tier, call find_playbooks instead'). The routing condition is precise and actionable.

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

Deploy Server