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 fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, does not disclose pagination behavior (AWS ListStackResources is paginated), and does not describe what data is returned (resource types, logical/physical IDs, status) despite lacking an output schema.

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 seven words. It efficiently front-loads the core action. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it is arguably underspecified rather than appropriately lean—a single additional sentence about return values or pagination would improve completeness without sacrificing clarity.

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 a straightforward list operation with three well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, the absence of information about response structure, pagination tokens, or AWS credential requirements leaves notable gaps in contextual completeness.

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 with clear examples for profile and region. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameters, but with complete schema documentation, this meets the baseline expectation. No credit is awarded since the schema already fully documents the three parameters.

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 clearly states the verb (List) and resource (resources in a CloudFormation stack). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling `aws_cfn_list_stacks` by specifying 'resources in' rather than listing the stacks themselves. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from `aws_cfn_describe_stacks` which describes stack properties rather than enumerating contained resources.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this versus `aws_cfn_describe_stacks` or `aws_cfn_describe_stack_events`. The description does not mention when profile/region overrides are necessary or what permissions are required. There are no alternatives or prerequisites mentioned despite having relevant sibling tools.

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