Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AWS MCP Server

AWS MCP Server

by marcelobrake
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

aws_codedeploy_list_applications

Retrieve all AWS CodeDeploy application names from your account to manage deployments and monitor resources.

Instructions

List CodeDeploy application names.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aws_codedeploy_list_applications"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNoAWS profile name from ~/.aws/config (e.g., 'default', 'production')
regionNoAWS region override (e.g., 'us-east-1', 'sa-east-1')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'List' implies read-only, description omits critical AWS-specific behaviors: pagination handling, rate limiting, whether results are cached, or exact format of returned application names.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely efficient at two sentences (effectively one clause). No冗余 words. However, extreme brevity borders on under-specification given the lack of behavioral context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a simple list operation with well-documented parameters, but lacks output format description and AWS-specific operational details (e.g., pagination tokens) that would be necessary for robust agent usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both profile and region parameters. Description does not add parameter semantics beyond schema, which is acceptable given the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States specific verb (List) and resource (CodeDeploy application names). Differentiates from sibling tools like aws_codedeploy_list_deployment_groups and aws_codedeploy_list_deployments by specifying 'applications' as the target resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aws_codedeploy_list_deployment_groups or when filtering/retrieval via other CodeDeploy tools would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools