Retrieve the incident-response role mapping for a 12-digit AWS account ID. Use this read-only lookup to identify which IR roles apply to a specific account.
Get the IR role mapping for a 12-digit AWS account id. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aws_account_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on what happens when the account has no mapping (error vs. empty), no permission/auth context, no rate or caching behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope. Minimal waste, though the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with annotations and consumes part of an already tiny budget.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read with no output schema, the definition covers the input format and the general return concept, but leaves the shape of the role mapping and the not-found case unspecified. Annotations carry the safety profile, so this is adequate rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% — aws_account_id is documented only by type and title. The description partially compensates by constraining the format to a 12-digit AWS account id, which is real value the schema lacks, but it says nothing about leading zeros, formatting, or validation failures.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (IR role mapping) plus the scoping key (a 12-digit AWS account id), which is enough to distinguish it from opencdr_ir_roles_list. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'for a 12-digit AWS account id' suggests it is the single-account lookup, with opencdr_ir_roles_list presumably for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.