Skip to main content
Glama
ckq-aws

Resilience Architect MCP

by ckq-aws
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

UpdateFISExperimentTemplate

Update an existing AWS FIS experiment template to modify fault injection targets, actions, stop conditions, and logging for your resilience tests.

Instructions

Update an existing AWS FIS experiment template.

This tool updates an existing experiment template with new parameters for
fault injection experiments, including targets, actions, and stop conditions.

Args:
    ctx: The MCP context for logging and communication
    id: ID of the experiment template to update
    description: Updated description of the experiment template
    stop_conditions: Updated conditions that stop the experiment
    targets: Updated target resources for the experiment
    actions: Updated actions to perform during the experiment
    role_arn: Updated IAM role ARN for experiment execution
    log_configuration: Updated configuration for experiment logging
    experiment_options: Updated experiment options
    experiment_report_configuration: Updated configuration for experiment reporting

Returns:
    Dict containing the updated experiment template

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the experiment template to update
actionsNoUpdated actions to perform during the experiment
targetsNoUpdated target resources for the experiment
role_arnNoUpdated IAM role ARN for experiment execution
descriptionNoUpdated description of the experiment template
stop_conditionsNoUpdated conditions that stop the experiment
log_configurationNoUpdated configuration for experiment logging
experiment_optionsNoUpdated experiment options
experiment_report_configurationNoUpdated configuration for experiment reporting

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It confirms this is a mutation and discloses the return type, but says nothing about the critical semantics of an update call: whether omitted optional fields are preserved or cleared, whether the change is reversible, what permissions are required, or whether partial updates are atomic.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening two sentences are front-loaded and useful, but the nine-item Args list duplicates schema text that the agent already receives, and it includes a 'ctx' entry that is not a real parameter. The Returns note earns its place only because no output schema exists.

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?

For a nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameter roster and the return value, but omits update semantics, required permissions, and failure modes. It is adequate to identify the tool but thin for invoking it safely.

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 baseline is 3. The Args block largely restates the schema's own parameter descriptions verbatim and adds no format detail for the complex fields (nested targets/actions maps, stop_conditions array shape), so it neither compensates for nor exceeds the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing AWS FIS experiment template') and enumerates the kinds of content being changed (targets, actions, stop conditions). An agent can distinguish it from Create/Get/List siblings by the verb, but the description never names those siblings or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the template must already exist or that the caller needs FIS permissions), and no mention of alternatives such as CreateFISExperimentTemplate or GetFISExperimentTemplate. The only implicit signal is 'existing', which the agent must infer from the word 'update'.

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