MCP Cloud Services Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have clear distinctions between cloud providers (AWS, Azure, GCP) and resource types, but there is significant overlap in functionality. For example, 'list_resources' appears to duplicate the purpose of provider-specific list tools like 'aws_list_ec2_instances' and 'azure_list_virtual_machines', which could confuse an agent about which tool to use for listing. Additionally, 'start_resource' and 'stop_resource' overlap with provider-specific start/stop tools like 'aws_start_ec2_instance', creating ambiguity in tool selection.
Naming Consistency2/5
The naming conventions are inconsistent and mixed. Some tools use a 'provider_action_resource' pattern (e.g., 'aws_list_ec2_instances'), while others use a 'action_resource' pattern (e.g., 'list_resources', 'get_resource'). There is also variation in verb usage, such as 'analyze' vs. 'check' vs. 'scan', and some tools include provider prefixes while others do not. This lack of a predictable pattern makes the tool set harder to navigate and understand.
Tool Count2/5
With 26 tools, the count is too high for the server's purpose of cloud services management. The duplication of functionality, such as having both generic and provider-specific list/start/stop tools, suggests bloat rather than necessity. A more streamlined set of 10-15 tools could cover the same domain effectively, making the current count feel heavy and potentially overwhelming for agents.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for cloud management, including listing, starting, stopping, analyzing costs, checking compliance, and scanning security issues across multiple providers. However, there are minor gaps, such as the absence of update or modify tools for resources (e.g., no 'update_resource' or 'modify_configuration'), which might require workarounds. Overall, the surface is largely complete for core operations.
Average 2.9/5 across 26 of 26 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool estimates costs but doesn't describe how it works (e.g., whether it uses real-time data, historical trends, or assumptions), what permissions are required, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves financial calculations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it's under-specified for a tool with no annotations or output schema, so it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of cost estimation and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the estimation is performed, what data sources are used, or what the result includes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
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?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage. The schema fully documents the single parameter 'provider' with its enum values. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Estimate monthly cost based on current usage', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'estimate' and resource 'monthly cost', but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_service' or 'analyze_costs', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.
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 sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_service' or 'analyze_costs', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'scan' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, its impact on resources (e.g., performance), or what the output entails (e.g., report format, alerts). This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a security tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full scope and implications.
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 both parameters ('provider' and 'resourceId') with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'security issues' entail or how parameters affect the scan. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Scan cloud resources for security issues' clearly states the action (scan) and target (cloud resources for security issues), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_compliance' or 'check_encryption' that might have overlapping security-related functions, making it somewhat vague in comparison.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'check_compliance' and 'check_encryption', there's no indication of whether this is a broader scan, a specific type of security check, or how it relates to other tools, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the analysis entails, leaving significant gaps.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of IAM analysis and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns, how it's performed, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with incomplete information for effective use.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'provider' clearly documented as the cloud provider with enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool analyzes IAM permissions and access policies, which is a clear purpose but lacks specificity about scope or granularity. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like check_compliance or scan_security_issues, which might overlap in security analysis domains.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_compliance or scan_security_issues. The description implies a focus on permissions, but without explicit context or exclusions, usage remains ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get metrics' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. aggregated data, or what format the metrics come in. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is limited. Every word earns its place, making it structurally sound despite content gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'metrics' means in this context, what format they return in, whether there are aggregation options, or how this differs from sibling monitoring tools. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output based solely on the parameter schema.
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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that provider determines resourceId format) or provide examples beyond what's in the schema's metricName description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get metrics for a cloud resource', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'metrics', but doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get_resource_health' or 'list_alarms' that might also retrieve monitoring data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what types of metrics or granularity.
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. With siblings like 'get_resource_health', 'list_alarms', and various provider-specific listing tools, there's no indication whether this is for real-time metrics, historical data, or how it differs from other monitoring-related tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only states the action ('List') without detailing what the list includes (e.g., alarm states, severities), how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in cloud monitoring.
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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of cloud monitoring alarms and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., alarm names, statuses, timestamps) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely interacts with multiple cloud providers, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (provider and resourceId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how resourceId filters alarms or the implications of provider choice. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List monitoring alarms' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('monitoring alarms'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metrics' or 'get_resource_health' that might also relate to monitoring. It specifies the type of alarms but lacks detail about what constitutes a 'monitoring alarm' in this context.
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 sibling tools like 'list_resources' or context-specific tools (e.g., 'aws_list_ec2_instances'), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (analyze costs) without mentioning permissions needed, rate limits, data freshness, output format, or whether it performs calculations versus fetching raw data. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the three supported providers. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a cost analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' means operationally, what kind of analysis is performed, what format results are returned in, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool selection and invocation.
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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying provider selection and cost analysis, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 as analyzing cloud costs for three major providers (AWS, Azure, GCP), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_service' or 'estimate_monthly_cost', leaving some ambiguity about scope and methodology.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cost_by_service' or 'estimate_monthly_cost'. The description mentions providers but doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the action ('List') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific AWS permissions, potential rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety (read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, pagination). For a tool interacting with a cloud service, more context is needed for reliable agent use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'region' documented as 'AWS region' with a default value. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as explaining region selection implications or listing behavior. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('List') and resource ('EC2 instances in AWS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'aws_list_rds_instances' or 'aws_list_s3_buckets' beyond the resource type, nor does it specify scope details like whether it lists all instances across all regions or just one region.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'list_resources' or other AWS-specific listing tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or region selection. The description is a simple statement without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what happens if no functions exist. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of AWS operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover key aspects like return format, error handling, or how results are structured (e.g., list of function names vs. details). For a tool that interacts with a cloud service, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent usage.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'region' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining region selection impact or default behavior. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('List') and resource ('Lambda functions in AWS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'aws_list_ec2_instances' or 'aws_list_s3_buckets' beyond the resource type, nor does it mention scope limitations like region filtering or pagination.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_resources' (which might be more generic) or 'aws_list_ec2_instances' (for other AWS resources), nor does it specify prerequisites such as AWS credentials or permissions required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the results will be in. For a cloud API tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral 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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of AWS API interactions and the complete lack of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each bucket, whether authentication is required, how errors are handled, or any operational constraints. For a cloud resource listing tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
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 fully documents the single 'region' parameter with its type, description, and default value. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 action ('List') and resource ('all S3 buckets in AWS'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_resources' or 'gcp_list_storage_buckets' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
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. With multiple sibling tools for listing resources across different cloud providers (AWS, Azure, GCP) and resource types, there's no indication of when this specific AWS S3 bucket listing tool is preferred over generic 'list_resources' or other cloud-specific listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 ('Start') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required AWS permissions, potential costs, rate limits, or what happens if the instance is already running. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting an EC2 instance (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 both parameters (instanceId and region). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 action ('Start') and resource ('an EC2 instance'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_resource' or 'aws_stop_ec2_instance' beyond the EC2 specificity, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.
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 like 'start_resource' or 'aws_stop_ec2_instance', nor does it mention prerequisites such as instance state or permissions. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the stop is reversible, potential costs or impacts, rate limits, or what happens to attached resources. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stop' entails (e.g., graceful shutdown vs. force stop), return values, error conditions, or dependencies like IAM permissions. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about 'instanceId' or 'region' beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or AWS-specific constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Stop') and resource ('an EC2 instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'aws_start_ec2_instance' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from generic 'stop_resource'.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_resource' or 'aws_start_ec2_instance'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., instance must be running), exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the results will be in. For a tool that presumably returns potentially large lists of resources, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information will be returned about storage accounts, whether there are limitations on the listing, authentication requirements, or how results are structured. The context signals show this is a non-trivial operation (2 parameters, no output schema) that needs more descriptive context.
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 fully documents both parameters (subscriptionId and location). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide any extra value.
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 ('List') and resource ('Storage Accounts in Azure'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_resources' or 'azure_list_virtual_machines' - it's clear what it does but not how it differs from similar listing tools.
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. With sibling tools like 'list_resources', 'azure_list_virtual_machines', and various AWS/GCP listing tools available, there's no indication of when this specific Azure storage account listing is preferred or what distinguishes it from other resource listing operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('List all Virtual Machines') without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a cloud resource listing tool, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point without any unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a cloud resource listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each VM, how results are structured, whether there are limitations on what's listed, or any authentication requirements. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.
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 ('List') and resource ('Virtual Machines in Azure'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'azure_list_storage_accounts' or 'list_resources', but the specificity of 'Virtual Machines' provides good clarity.
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 like 'list_resources', 'get_resource', or other cloud-specific listing tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately among similar listing operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. While 'check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like, whether it's a synchronous or asynchronous operation, or if there are rate limits. For a security-related tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every word earns its place by clearly communicating what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a security-related tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the check returns (e.g., encryption status details, compliance findings, recommendations), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no context about the operation's scope or limitations.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 as checking encryption status of cloud resources, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'check_compliance' or 'scan_security_issues' that might also involve security assessments, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
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. With sibling tools like 'check_compliance' and 'scan_security_issues' that might overlap in security checking functionality, there's no indication of when this specific encryption check is appropriate versus broader security scans.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 but only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use, such as whether it lists all functions or requires specific access.
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 with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It directly communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing resources in GCP), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits behavioral traits, usage context, and output details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
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 input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a listing operation, which the schema already supports. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('List') and resource ('Cloud Functions in GCP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gcp_list_compute_instances' or 'gcp_list_storage_buckets' beyond specifying the resource type, missing explicit distinction.
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, such as other GCP listing tools or general 'list_resources'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states it lists instances but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no instances exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error handling, or how it fits with siblings. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 both parameters (projectId and region). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints, but it implies listing is scoped to GCP, which aligns with 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Compute Engine instances in GCP'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_resources' or 'gcp_list_cloud_functions', which could also list GCP resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'list_resources' for broader listing or 'gcp_list_cloud_functions' for other GCP resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with cloud resources, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not address key contextual aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, metadata). For a cloud resource tool, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters ('projectId' and 'region') with clear meanings. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 action ('List all') and resource ('Cloud Storage buckets in GCP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_resources' or 'aws_list_s3_buckets', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
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, such as 'list_resources' for broader listing or 'aws_list_s3_buckets' for AWS-specific buckets. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the cost breakdown is in. For a tool with three required parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a list, a summary, or structured data), how errors are handled, or any dependencies, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (provider, startDate, endDate). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 'Get cost breakdown by service' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('cost breakdown by service'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'analyze_costs' or 'estimate_monthly_cost', which appear related to cost analysis.
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. With sibling tools like 'analyze_costs' and 'estimate_monthly_cost' present, there's no indication of what differentiates this cost-related tool from others, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the detailed information takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of cloud resource management and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are structured, or any prerequisites for successful invocation. For a tool that presumably returns complex resource metadata, more context is needed.
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?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't provide additional context about how these parameters interact or what constitutes a valid resourceId.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific resource'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_resources' or 'get_resource_health', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus alternatives.
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. With many sibling tools like 'list_resources', 'get_resource_health', and provider-specific listing tools, there's no indication of when this detailed retrieval tool is appropriate versus broader listing or health-checking tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. cached data, or what the output format looks like. Minimal context is added beyond the basic purpose.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'health status' returns (e.g., a status code, detailed report), how to interpret results, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more completeness is needed.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters (e.g., how 'resourceId' is formatted or what 'health status' means for different resource types). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 action ('Get') and target ('health status of a cloud resource'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_resource' (general info) and 'get_metrics' (performance data), but could be more specific about what 'health status' entails (e.g., operational state, availability).
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_resource' (general info), 'list_alarms' (alert status), or 'check_compliance' (policy adherence). The description implies usage for health checks but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states it 'lists' resources but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, permissions required, whether it's a read-only operation, or what the output format looks like. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the missing 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of listing resources across multiple cloud providers, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'list' entails (e.g., format, pagination), authentication needs, or how it differs from the many sibling list tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool works across multiple cloud providers, which is already covered by the 'provider' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'list' and resource 'cloud resources', specifying the scope across AWS, Azure, or GCP. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_resource' (singular) and 'analyze_costs' (different operation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from provider-specific list tools (e.g., 'aws_list_ec2_instances').
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to prefer this cross-provider tool over the many provider-specific list tools (e.g., 'aws_list_ec2_instances'), nor does it indicate prerequisites like authentication or account setup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Start') which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, potential costs, side effects (e.g., billing starts), rate limits, or what happens if the resource is already running. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Start a cloud resource') and adds brief examples for clarity. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting cloud resources (a mutation with potential cost/security implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like success/failure behavior, return values, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., verifying resource existence first). This makes it inadequate for safe agent operation.
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%, providing full documentation of the three parameters (provider, resourceId, resourceType) with enums and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying general cloud resource starting, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any schema gaps.
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 action ('Start') and target ('a cloud resource'), with examples of resource types ('instance, function, etc.'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'stop_resource' and 'delete_resource' by specifying the 'start' action, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from provider-specific tools like 'aws_start_ec2_instance'.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer provider-specific tools (e.g., 'aws_start_ec2_instance') or other related tools like 'get_resource' for checking status. The description implies a general-purpose start function but offers no context about prerequisites, permissions, or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Stop a cloud resource' implies a state change operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether the stop is reversible, what happens to associated resources, error conditions, or response format. For a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three straightforward parameters and gets directly to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs state changes on cloud resources with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like what 'stop' means for different resource types, whether data is preserved, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description should provide more operational context given the tool's complexity.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 'Stop a cloud resource' clearly states the action (stop) and target (cloud resource), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this generic tool from its more specific sibling 'aws_stop_ec2_instance', which handles the same action for a specific provider/resource type combination.
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. With multiple sibling tools like 'aws_stop_ec2_instance', 'delete_resource', and 'start_resource', there's no indication of when this generic stop tool is preferred over provider-specific tools or how it differs from deletion operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what data is returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loaded with the essential information.
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 simple list tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and siblings that could cause confusion, it lacks completeness in guiding usage and understanding behavioral traits. It covers the basic 'what' but not the 'how' or 'when'.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'region' clearly documented as 'AWS region' with a default value. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 action ('List') and resource ('all RDS database instances in AWS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'aws_list_ec2_instances' or 'list_resources', but it's specific enough to identify the exact AWS service and resource type.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'aws_list_ec2_instances', 'list_resources', and 'get_resource', the description doesn't help an agent choose between them for listing RDS instances specifically. There's no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'check' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires special permissions, what the output format might be, whether it's resource-intensive, or if there are rate limits. For a compliance tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear purpose, front-loading the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 moderate complexity (compliance checking across providers/standards), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the domain but lacks details on what the check entails, what results to expect, or how it differs from related security tools. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral context is insufficient for confident agent use.
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%, with both parameters ('provider' and 'standard') fully documented in the schema with enums and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'general' standard option or how different providers affect the check. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 as 'Check compliance with security standards' and specifies examples like CIS and SOC2. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource domain (compliance/security standards), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_encryption' or 'scan_security_issues' which might overlap in the security domain.
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 when this compliance check is appropriate compared to other security tools like 'check_encryption' or 'scan_security_issues', nor does it specify prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation and 'use with caution' provides some warning, the description lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what happens to dependent resources. The confirmation parameter in the schema hints at safety measures, but the description doesn't explain this behavioral aspect.
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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core action ('Delete a cloud resource') and following with the cautionary note. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure moves from action to warning in a logical flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there's confirmation feedback, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The 'use with caution' warning is helpful but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and operational context needed for a safe deletion tool.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples of resource IDs, or clarify the confirmation workflow. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value beyond 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('cloud resource'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_resource', 'start_resource', and 'stop_resource' by being the only destructive deletion operation. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'cloud resource' beyond what the parameters indicate.
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 includes 'use with caution' which implies this should be used carefully for deletion operations, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. No specific exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_resource' that might be used first to verify what's being deleted.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![Cloud-mcp_server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/code-alchemist01/Cloud-mcp_server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/code-alchemist01/Cloud-mcp_server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Cloud-mcp_server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/code-alchemist01/Cloud-mcp_server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/code-alchemist01/Cloud-mcp_server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/code-alchemist01/Cloud-mcp_server'

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