AWS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context that methods are included in the return, but fails to disclose read-only safety, pagination behavior, or error handling characteristics.

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?

Single efficient sentence (11 words) with front-loaded verb. No repetition of schema details or redundant terms. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a listing tool with 100% input schema coverage, mentioning the key output components (paths, methods). However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should explicitly state the read-only nature or pagination behavior to be complete.

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%, establishing baseline 3. The description parenthetically clarifies that 'resources' means 'paths', adding slight semantic value beyond the schema, but doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships or formats.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (resources/paths for a REST API) including scope (configured methods). Implies distinction from sibling aws_apigateway_get_rest_apis by requiring an existing REST API, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like aws_apigateway_get_rest_apis or aws_apigatewayv2_get_routes. No prerequisites mentioned despite requiring a valid rest_api_id.

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