Retrieve ACM policies for a cluster or namespace, displaying remediation actions and compliance status to identify and address non-compliant resources.
List ACM Policies with remediation action and compliance status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | No | ||
| namespace | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation)Skip and it discloses the returned data fields. However, it does not explain scoping behavior, how the cluster or namespace parameters affect results, or any pagination or default behavior.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately identifies the resource and the key output fields. There is no redundant content or filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are partly covered, but the description fails to explain the role of the two optional parameters or how filtered results behave. For a tool with no annotations and undeclared parameters, this is incomplete for confident selection and invocation.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the cluster or namespace parameters at all. This leaves the agent to infer their meaning and defaults on its own, which is a significant gap 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 specific verb and resource: 'List ACM Policies', and adds the key output attributes 'remediation action and compliance status'. This makes the core purpose clearholi, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get_policy_compliance.
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?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_policy_compliance or list_managed_clusters. The description only says what the tool does, with no conditions, exclusions, or mention of preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.