Skip to main content
Glama

list_unassociated_eips

Identify Elastic IP addresses not currently linked to any AWS EC2 instance to help optimize resource usage and reduce costs.

Instructions

Lists Elastic IPs that are not associated with any instance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that lists unassociated Elastic IPs by calling DescribeAddressesCommand and filtering Addresses without AssociationId.
    if (name === "list_unassociated_eips") {
        const command = new DescribeAddressesCommand({});
        const response = await ec2Client.send(command);
        // Filter where AssociationId is missing
        const unusedEips = response.Addresses?.filter(a => !a.AssociationId).map(a => ({
            PublicIp: a.PublicIp,
            AllocationId: a.AllocationId,
            Domain: a.Domain
        })) || [];
    
        return {
            content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(unusedEips, null, 2) }]
        };
    }
  • src/index.ts:439-446 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListTools response, including name, description, and empty input schema.
    {
        name: "list_unassociated_eips",
        description: "Lists Elastic IPs that are not associated with any instance.",
        inputSchema: {
            type: "object",
            properties: {}
        }
    },
  • Input schema definition for the tool (empty object).
        inputSchema: {
            type: "object",
            properties: {}
        }
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Lists') but doesn't describe key behaviors such as whether it requires specific IAM permissions, if it's read-only (implied but not stated), how results are formatted (e.g., JSON list), or any rate limits or pagination. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the key information ('Lists Elastic IPs...') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output format. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough guidance for optimal agent use without additional assumptions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('Elastic IPs that are not associated with any instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_ec2_instances' or 'list_internet_gateways', which would require mentioning it's specifically for unassociated EIPs versus other AWS resources.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing AWS permissions), typical use cases (e.g., cost optimization or security audits), or how it relates to siblings like 'list_ec2_instances' for broader instance management.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/bhaveshopss/MCP-server'

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