Skip to main content
Glama
antonioschaffert

AWS Advisor MCP Server

by antonioschaffert
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists AWS service categories for exploration, while the other provides service recommendations based on use cases. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'list_' and 'suggest_' prefixes, and they use snake_case uniformly. The naming is predictable and readable across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope of AWS advisory. While the tools cover basic exploration and recommendation, the domain suggests potential for more operations like detailed service comparisons or cost analysis, making the count inadequate.

    Completeness3/5

    The server provides a starting point for AWS service discovery but has notable gaps. It lacks tools for deeper analysis, such as comparing services, checking pricing, or managing recommendations, which limits its utility for comprehensive advisory tasks.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the basic function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as response format, whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

    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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage. There is no wasted text, and it effectively communicates the core information in a structured manner.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and return values, making it minimally viable but incomplete for full transparency.

    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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'use_case' with a clear description. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameter's purpose ('Provide a description...') without providing additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get AWS service recommendations based on your use case.' It specifies the verb ('Get recommendations') and resource ('AWS service'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_aws_categories' beyond the recommendation focus. The description is specific but lacks sibling comparison.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies when to use this tool ('based on your use case') and provides an example of what to provide, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tool. Usage is contextually implied rather than explicitly guided.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and output type ('list all available AWS service categories'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the list is static or dynamic. The description does not contradict any annotations, but it provides only basic operational context.

    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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, resource, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the main action ('List all available AWS service categories') and avoids any redundant or extraneous information, making it highly concise and effective.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, categories as strings or objects) and behavioral aspects like caching or updates, which could be helpful for an AI agent. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return values, but it only states the purpose broadly.

    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 has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it appropriately explains the tool's function without unnecessary parameter details. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as the description adequately covers the tool's purpose without schema redundancy.

    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 clearly states the specific action ('List all available AWS service categories') and the resource ('AWS service categories'), with examples of what those categories include ('compute, storage, database, etc.'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'suggest_aws_service' by focusing on listing categories rather than suggesting individual services.

    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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to help you explore services by type'), which implies it's for initial exploration or categorization. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'use suggest_aws_service for service recommendations'), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

my-dev-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

my-dev-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/antonioschaffert/my-dev-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server