Skip to main content
Glama
Sidd27

infrawise

by Sidd27
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

SQS queue details

get_queue_details
Read-only

Inspect SQS queues to verify DLQ coverage, encryption, FIFO type, visibility timeout, backlog, and retention, helping diagnose messaging issues and Lambda timeout mismatch.

Instructions

Returns all SQS queues with DLQ presence, encryption status, FIFO type (isFifo), visibility timeout, approximate message count, and retention days. When isFifo is true, all SendMessage calls must include a MessageGroupId. Call this when reviewing messaging architecture, investigating a message backlog, checking DLQ coverage, or verifying visibility timeout is set correctly relative to Lambda timeout (should be 6× the Lambda timeout). Use get_infra_overview for a quick queue count only. When runtime signals are enabled, oldestMessageAgeSec reports the age of the oldest message from CloudWatch.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxAgeSecondsNoFreshness tolerance in seconds. Advisory: the answer is returned either way, with dataHealth.withinRequestedAge reporting whether it met the tolerance. Nothing re-reads AWS on a tool call — run `infrawise analyze` to refresh. Pass a small value for point-in-time questions ("does this queue have a DLQ right now"); omit it for architecture questions where a day-old snapshot is fine.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.26.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / maxAgeSeconds / description
      Previous value: -"Refuse to answer from an analysis older than this many seconds. Use a small value for point-in-time questions (\"does this queue have a DLQ right now\"); omit it for architecture questions where a day-old snapshot is fine."New value: +"Freshness tolerance in seconds. Advisory: the answer is returned either way, with dataHealth.withinRequestedAge reporting whether it met the tolerance. Nothing re-reads AWS on a tool call — run `infrawise analyze` to refresh. Pass a small value for point-in-time questions (\"does this queue have a DLQ right now\"); omit it for architecture questions where a day-old snapshot is fine."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / maxAgeSeconds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Refuse to answer from an analysis older than this many seconds. Use a small value for point-in-time questions (\"does this queue have a DLQ right now\"); omit it for architecture questions where a day-old snapshot is fine.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  3. Addedv0.21.0
  4. Removedv0.19.7
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so safety is established, but the description adds real behavioral context: CloudWatch-derived oldestMessageAgeSec, the FIFO MessageGroupId requirement, and the 6x Lambda timeout rule of thumb. It doesn't cover output shape or pagination, but the added semantics clearly exceed 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 the return payload, then when-to-use, then the sibling alternative. Dense and largely waste-free, though the FIFO MessageGroupId aside is mildly tangential to selecting this tool.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and the optional runtime-signal field. Combined with when-to-use guidance and the sibling alternative, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only minor detail (e.g. multi-account scope) is absent.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single maxAgeSeconds parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema itself (freshness tolerance, advisory behavior, dataHealth.withinRequestedAge). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('all SQS queues') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (DLQ presence, encryption, isFifo, visibility timeout, message count, retention). It explicitly contrasts with sibling get_infra_overview, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('reviewing messaging architecture, investigating a message backlog, checking DLQ coverage, verifying visibility timeout') and names the alternative with its narrower scope ('Use get_infra_overview for a quick queue count only'). Nothing is left to inference.

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