AWS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only implies read-only access via the word 'List'. It fails to mention pagination behavior (despite the 'limit' parameter suggesting it), rate limiting, required IAM permissions, or what data structure is returned.

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?

The description is extremely concise at only 5 words, with the action verb front-loaded. While efficient, it may be excessively terse given the complete absence of annotations and output schema, leaving significant documentation gaps.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior, return values, or pagination patterns (common in AWS APIs). The current single-sentence description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's capabilities and output.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (profile, region, limit), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description itself adds no semantic context about the parameters, such as noting that 'limit' controls pagination or that all parameters are optional.

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 provides a specific verb (List) and resource (API Gateway REST APIs), and the '(v1)' notation helps distinguish this tool from the sibling 'aws_apigatewayv2_get_apis'. However, it does not explicitly clarify the difference between REST APIs (v1) and HTTP APIs (v2), leaving some ambiguity for users unfamiliar with AWS API Gateway versioning.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'aws_apigatewayv2_get_apis' or other API Gateway exploration tools like 'aws_apigateway_get_resources'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or alternative recommendations provided.

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