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. It qualifies the scope with 'recent' (implying time-boundedness) and suggests read-only nature via 'Get', but omits critical details like pagination behavior, what 'recent' specifically means (e.g., last 24 hours vs. last N events), rate limits, or the structure of returned events.

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 compact sentence with purpose stated first and usage context parenthetically appended. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. Slightly constrained by the parenthetical format which could be integrated more smoothly, but appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal viable context for an AWS API tool. It identifies the resource and primary use case but lacks detail on return values, pagination tokens, or the chronological nature of the results that would help an agent handle the response correctly.

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%, with all three parameters (profile, region, stack_name) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'events' for CloudFormation, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling 'aws_cfn_describe_stacks' by specifying 'events' rather than stack metadata, though it could explicitly clarify the difference between describing stacks versus retrieving their event history.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use the tool via the parenthetical '(useful for debugging deployments)', indicating its purpose for troubleshooting failed or in-progress stack changes. However, lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use aws_cfn_describe_stacks instead) or exclusion criteria.

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