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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks explicit safety guarantees, pagination behavior, rate limiting concerns, or error conditions typical for AWS operations.

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 single-sentence description is extremely compact with no redundant words and places the action first. However, it borders on under-specification given the complexity of AWS API Gateway operations and lack of supporting annotations.

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?

For an AWS listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits prerequisite chain information (how to obtain api_id), return value structure, and pagination behavior necessary for correct agent invocation.

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 the structured schema fully documents all parameters (profile, region, api_id). The description adds minimal parameter-specific context, though mentioning 'v2' implicitly constrains the api_id parameter to v2 APIs. Baseline score warranted by high schema coverage.

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), resource (routes), and clear scope (HTTP/WebSocket API v2), which effectively distinguishes this from v1 API Gateway siblings like aws_apigateway_get_resources. However, it omits the service name 'API Gateway' which would make the context unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'v2' and 'HTTP/WebSocket', distinguishing it from REST API Gateway v1 tools. However, it fails to explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., that api_id must be obtained from aws_apigatewayv2_get_apis first) or mention when to use this versus aws_apigatewayv2_get_stages.

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