Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AWS MCP Server

AWS MCP Server

by marcelobrake
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

aws_acm_describe_certificate

Retrieve detailed information about an AWS Certificate Manager (ACM) certificate, including its status, domain names, expiration date, and associated resources.

Instructions

Describe an ACM certificate in detail.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "certificate_arn": "<certificate_arn>"
    },
    "name": "aws_acm_describe_certificate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNoAWS profile name from ~/.aws/config (e.g., 'default', 'production')
regionNoAWS region override (e.g., 'us-east-1', 'sa-east-1')
certificate_arnYesCertificate ARN

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'in detail' hints at comprehensive return data, it omits read-only nature, error behavior (e.g., invalid ARN), rate limiting, or what specific certificate details are returned.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately sized and not wasteful, but front-loading is minimal—it states the basic operation without structuring information about prerequisites, parameters, or output.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists, yet description fails to indicate what 'in detail' encompasses (e.g., domain validation status, certificate chain, renewal eligibility). Should specify return value structure for a 'describe' operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (profile, region, certificate_arn). Description adds no param-specific context, but baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb 'Describe' and resource 'ACM certificate' with scope indicator 'in detail'. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_acm_list_certificates (single detail vs. enumeration) though does not make this explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the list operation, nor mention that certificate_arn (required) must typically be obtained from aws_acm_list_certificates first. No prerequisites or state requirements mentioned.

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