Retrieve all calculated fields in a QuickSight analysis by ID. Use this to inspect field definitions and formulas before editing or debugging your analysis.
List all calculated fields in a QuickSight analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analysis_id | Yes | The QuickSight analysis ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping context (all fields within a given analysis), but discloses nothing about result ordering, size, or pagination 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste; every word earns its place and the resource and scope lead the statement.
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 described, and the single parameter is documented in the schema. For a simple list tool with annotations, this is nearly complete, with only usage routing left unstated.
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 100%, so analysis_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('calculated fields') scoped to a QuickSight analysis. It is clearly a read/collection operation, distinguishable from the singular get_calculated_field, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this returns the full set while get_calculated_field fetches one by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.