map_dependenciesMap AWS resource dependencies and relationships from a resource ARN, with configurable depth and region to reveal connected services and infrastructure.
Map resource dependencies and relationships
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| resource_arn | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'map', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention traversal depth limits, resource types covered, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs complex graph traversal.
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 short (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the verb but omits critical details, making it an incomplete specification rather than an efficient one.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description provides no context about the dependency graph structure, depth semantics, or edge cases. For a tool that maps dependencies, an agent would need to know what kind of relationships are captured and how max_depth behaves. This is inadequate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (resource_arn, region, max_depth). The agent must infer their meaning solely from names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 states a clear verb ('Map') and resource ('resource dependencies and relationships'), which conveys the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like discover_resources or impact_analysis, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.