Skip to main content
Glama
YawLabs

@yawlabs/aws-mcp

Official
by YawLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

aws_resource_update

Destructive

Update an AWS resource by applying RFC 6902 JSON Patch via Cloud Control API; optionally poll until completion.

Instructions

Update an AWS resource via Cloud Control API using RFC 6902 JSON Patch. Async by default: returns a ProgressEvent with OperationStatus=IN_PROGRESS and a top-level requestToken. Pass awaitCompletion: true to have the server poll until terminal. Typical patch: [{op: 'replace', path: '/MemorySize', value: 512}].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoOverride session region for this call.
profileNoOverride session profile for this call.
typeNameYesCloudFormation type name.
maxWaitMsNoMaximum total wait in ms when awaitCompletion is true (range 1000-1800000). Default 300000. On timeout, returns the last seen status with a hint to keep polling.
timeoutMsNoTimeout in milliseconds. Default 60000.
identifierYesPrimary identifier for the resource.
clientTokenNoIdempotency token (max 128 chars).
patchDocumentYesRFC 6902 JSON Patch document (array of operations). At least one entry. 'add' and 'replace' must carry a `value`.
pollIntervalMsNoPoll interval in ms when awaitCompletion is true (range 500-30000). Default 2000. ProgressEvent.RetryAfter overrides when CCAPI returns one.
awaitCompletionNoIf true, poll get-resource-request-status until the operation reaches SUCCESS / FAILED / CANCEL_COMPLETE and return the final ProgressEvent. Default false (returns immediately with IN_PROGRESS, caller polls via aws_resource_status).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / patchDocument / description
      Previous value: -"RFC 6902 JSON Patch document (array of operations). At least one entry."New value: +"RFC 6902 JSON Patch document (array of operations). At least one entry. 'add' and 'replace' must carry a `value`."
  2. First observedv1.3.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly discloses the async behavior, the initial return shape (ProgressEvent with OperationStatus=IN_PROGRESS and requestToken), and the awaitCompletion polling option. Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints by explaining the asynchronous execution model and response semantics.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then explains the async return behavior, then provides a clarifying example. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral context: async request/response flow, the requestToken, how to opt into waiting, and a representative patch. It does not enumerate all parameters, but the schema already does that, and the sibling aws_resource_status is referenced in the schema for polling. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing a concrete RFC 6902 patch example with op, path, and value, and by explaining the meaning of awaitCompletion and the default async behavior. This goes beyond the schema's structural descriptions and helps the agent construct valid patchDocument payloads.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an AWS resource via Cloud Control API using RFC 6902 JSON Patch.' It clearly identifies the mechanism (Cloud Control API, JSON Patch) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like aws_resource_create, aws_resource_delete, and aws_resource_status by focusing on update semantics and async behavior.

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 gives concrete guidance on the two usage modes: async by default with immediate IN_PROGRESS response, or pass awaitCompletion: true to have the server poll until terminal. It also gives a typical patch example, helping the agent understand how to structure calls. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over aws_resource_create/delete/status, but the purpose is unambiguous and the sibling names make the distinction clear.

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