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 disclosure burden. It adds valuable context by specifying 'recent' executions and inclusion of 'status' data. However, it omits critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose the read-only/safe nature of the operation, pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), what time range constitutes 'recent', or required IAM permissions.

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, front-loaded sentence of nine words. Every word earns its place: 'List' (action), 'recent executions' (scope), 'CodePipeline' (resource), 'with their status' (return value hint). No redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 four-parameter list operation with complete schema documentation, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, gaps remain regarding output structure (no output schema exists), the specific scope of 'recent' (time-based vs. count-based), and pagination continuation patterns.

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 four parameters (profile, region, pipeline_name, max_results) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but given the complete schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation.

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 identifies the resource (pipeline executions) and action (list), with specific mention of 'status' in results. It differentiates from the sibling 'list_pipelines' by focusing on 'executions'. However, it fails to distinguish when to use this versus 'get_pipeline_state', which also retrieves pipeline status information.

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 prefer this tool over related siblings like 'aws_codepipeline_get_pipeline_state' (which retrieves current state vs. execution history) or prerequisites such as requiring an existing pipeline. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are present.

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