Skip to main content
Glama
konippi

aws-blackbelt-mcp-server

by konippi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

GitHub CI License PyPI version Python versions

Coverage Report FileStmtsMissCoverMissingsrc/aws_blackbelt_mcp_server   init.py00100%    config.py100100%    server.py19194%39src/aws_blackbelt_mcp_server/helpers   init.py00100%    path_resolver.py120100% src/aws_blackbelt_mcp_server/tools   init.py00100%    seminars.py80988%53, 129–130, 132, 191, 193, 205–206, 208tests   init.py00100%    test_config.py250100%    test_server.py70100% tests/helpers   init.py00100%    test_path_resolver.py200100% tests/integration   init.py00100%    test_get_seminar_transcript.py55492%24–27   test_search_seminars.py490100% tests/tools   init.py00100%    test_seminars.py270100% TOTAL3041495% 

AWS Black Belt MCP Server

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides search functionality for AWS Black Belt Online Seminars.

Tools

  1. search_seminars: Search AWS Black Belt Online Seminars by keywords

  2. get_seminar_transcript: Get transcript from seminar YouTube videos (Supported only in Japanese)

Current Information Sources

  • AWS Black Belt Online Seminars

  • PDF materials

  • YouTube videos

  • Seminar transcripts

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.10 or higher

  • uv package manager

Related MCP server: microCMS MCP Server

Configuration

Amazon Q Developer CLI

For use with Amazon Q Developer CLI, add the following configuration to your MCP settings file:

  • Workspace-level configuration: .aws/amazonq/cli-agents/default.json

  • User-level configuration: ~/.aws/amazonq/cli-agents/default.json

Using uvx

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "aws-blackbelt-mcp-server": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["aws-blackbelt-mcp-server"]
    }
  }
}

Using Docker

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "aws-blackbelt-mcp-server": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "-i",
        "--rm",
        "ghcr.io/konippi/aws-blackbelt-mcp-server"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Basic Usage

Examples:

Available Tools

2 tools
get_seminar_transcriptA

Get transcript from seminar video. Note: Supported only in Japanese.

Args: ctx: Context to access MCP features youtube_url: YouTube video URL language: Language code for transcript (default: "ja" for Japanese)

Returns: Seminar transcript

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNoLanguage code for transcript (e.g., 'ja')ja
youtube_urlYesYouTube video URL

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it reveals a key limitation ('Supported only in Japanese') and states the return value ('Seminar transcript'). It does not disclose error behavior or output formatting, but the operation is a simple read-like retrieval, so these are minor gaps.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose and the Japanese-only limitation. However, the 'ctx: Context to access MCP features' line is extraneous and not represented in the schema, which detracts from the overall structure and precision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the required purpose, arguments, and return value, plus the critical Japanese-only constraint. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could briefly note what happens for non-Japanese videos.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's Args section introduces 'ctx' as an argument even though it is not in the input schema. This could mislead an agent into attempting to pass an unsupported parameter. The other parameter descriptions mostly repeat the schema and add little meaningful semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Get transcript from seminar video', a specific verb plus resource. It is easily distinguished from the sibling search_seminars because 'get transcript' and 'search seminars' are semantically different actions.

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 provides an implied usage context: use this when a seminar transcript is needed, and it explicitly notes that it is supported only in Japanese. However, it does not explicitly compare against the sibling search_seminars or state when not to use it.

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

search_seminarsA

Search AWS Black Belt seminars by keyword.

Args: ctx: Context to access MCP features query: Search keyword (e.g., "machine learning", "lambda", "s3") sort_order: Sort order by published date - "desc" (newest first) or "asc" (oldest first) limit: Maximum number of results to return (default: 10, max: 50)

Returns: List of seminar information including title, date, PDF and YouTube links

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results
queryYesSearch keyword
sort_orderNoSort orderdesc

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does well by stating that results are a list of seminar information including title, date, PDF and YouTube links, and it clarifies sort semantics. It stops short of explicitly stating that the operation is read-only or describing authentication/rate-limit behavior, but 'Search' makes the non-destructive nature reasonably clear.

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 well-structured with a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every element earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no redundant prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward search tool, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, all parameters with practical examples, and return content despite the lack of an output schema. The main missing piece is a pointer to get_seminar_transcript as the appropriate next step once a seminar is found, but this is not required to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by giving concrete query examples like 'machine learning', 'lambda', and 's3', clarifying that sort_order is by published date, and describing the return shape. This helps an agent choose appropriate parameter values.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Search AWS Black Belt seminars by keyword,' giving a specific verb and resource. This clearly contrasts with the sibling tool get_seminar_transcript, which presumably retrieves content for an already-identified seminar rather than searching for seminars.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to find AWS Black Belt seminars by keyword. However, it never explicitly mentions when to use get_seminar_transcript instead, and there is no guidance about follow-up steps after searching.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.2.1
    • First observedget_seminar_transcript
    • First observedsearch_seminars
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for seminar metadata, the other retrieves a transcript from a video URL. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (search_seminars, get_seminar_transcript). The naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels minimal but not unreasonable for its narrow domain. It is on the thin end of the scale, leaving limited functionality but still a coherent set.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core workflow of finding seminars and accessing their transcripts. A minor gap is the lack of a way to list all seminars without a keyword or fetch seminar details directly, but most use cases are met.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers