AWS MCP Server

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it hints at the return value with 'full configuration details', it fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only vs. mutation), error handling behavior (what happens if a project doesn't exist), or the batch limit of 100 (which is only in the 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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place by conveying essential scope ('full configuration', 'one or more').

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 that no output schema exists, the description provides a minimal hint at the return value ('full configuration details'), but lacks detail on the structure, pagination, or partial failure behavior. For a retrieval tool with simple parameters and no nested objects, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'profile', 'region', and 'names' parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value for parameters beyond implying the batch nature ('one or more') which aligns with the array type of the 'names' parameter. This meets the baseline score of 3 for 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CodeBuild projects'), and the phrase 'full configuration details' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling 'list_projects' tool (which returns summaries) and 'batch_get_builds' (which returns builds, not projects). However, it could explicitly name the sibling alternatives for maximum clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_codebuild_list_projects' (to discover names first), nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing valid project names. There is no 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite information.

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