Skip to main content
Glama

list-credentials

View configured AWS credentials and profiles on your machine to manage access for AWS MCP Server interactions.

Instructions

List all AWS credentials/configs/profiles that are configured/usable on this machine

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • index.ts:81-89 (registration)
    Registers the 'list-credentials' tool in the listTools response with an empty input schema.
      name: "list-credentials",
      description:
        "List all AWS credentials/configs/profiles that are configured/usable on this machine",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        required: [],
      },
    },
  • Executes the 'list-credentials' tool by serializing and returning the list of available AWS profile names along with any error from loading credentials.
    } else if (name === "list-credentials") {
      return createTextResponse(
        JSON.stringify({ profiles: Object.keys(profiles), error })
      );
  • Core helper function that loads AWS credentials and configuration files using AWS.IniLoader, merges them into a profiles object, and handles errors.
    async function listCredentials() {
      let credentials: any;
      let configs: any;
      let error: any;
      try {
        credentials = new AWS.IniLoader().loadFrom({});
      } catch (error) {
        error = `Failed to load credentials: ${error}`;
      }
      try {
        configs = new AWS.IniLoader().loadFrom({ isConfig: true });
      } catch (error) {
        error = `Failed to load configs: ${error}`;
      }
    
      const profiles = { ...(credentials || {}), ...(configs || {}) };
    
      return { profiles, error };
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List,' but doesn't specify if it requires permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail on behavior is a notable shortfall.

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 function without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output format. For a basic list tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete by addressing when to use it and what to expect in return.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does imply the scope ('on this machine'), which is useful context. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description adequately covers the tool's intent without unnecessary parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all AWS credentials/configs/profiles that are configured/usable on this machine.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('AWS credentials/configs/profiles'), making the action explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'select-profile' or 'run-aws-code', which could involve similar resources, so 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for inventory purposes before selecting a profile. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when to invoke it, which is a significant gap.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools