Scan an AWS region to generate a Cloudcraft blueprint JSON for live architecture snapshots, with optional filters and exclusions for targeted resource capture.
Scan one AWS region into a blueprint JSON via Cloudcraft live-scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | ||
| region | Yes | ||
| exclude | No | ||
| account_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Input schema / properties / excludeAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Exclude"
+}Input schema / properties / filterAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Filter"
+}Input schema / properties / serviceRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Service",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "account_id",
- "region",
- "service"
-]New value: +[
+ "account_id",
+ "region"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is largely covered. The description adds that this is a live scan against AWS that yields a blueprint JSON, but omits auth requirements, whether an existing blueprint is overwritten, and rate/scope limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint (one region) and output (blueprint JSON) arrive immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter, live-scanning mutation the description omits the filter/exclude semantics and any precondition that the AWS account must be connected, leaving gaps an agent would hit at call time.
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% and only one of four parameters (region) is even implied by the description. The optional filter and exclude parameters are never mentioned, and account_id is only obliquely implied by the AWS context, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (scan), resource (one AWS region), and output artifact (blueprint JSON) plus the mechanism (Cloudcraft live-scan). The AWS scope cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling snapshot_azure.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no stated boundary versus list_aws_accounts or create_blueprint. The agent must infer from the tool name and the AWS/region wording that this is the region-scanning entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.