Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AWS MCP Server

AWS MCP Server

by marcelobrake
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

aws_codepipeline_list_pipelines

Retrieve a list of AWS CodePipeline pipelines to monitor deployment workflows and manage continuous delivery processes across AWS services.

Instructions

List CodePipeline pipelines.

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_codepipeline_list_pipelines"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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, yet reveals nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior, rate limiting, or whether results are cached. The agent cannot infer operational characteristics from this description alone.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

While appropriately brief at three words, the single sentence adds minimal value and could easily accommodate usage guidelines or output hints without sacrificing clarity. It avoids wordiness but borders on under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given zero annotations and no output schema, the description inadequately prepares the agent for tool invocation. It fails to describe the response format, pagination tokens, or what distinguishes a pipeline object, leaving critical gaps despite simple parameter schemas.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no examples of profile names or guidance on when to override regions).

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'List CodePipeline pipelines' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it confirms the resource type, it fails to distinguish from siblings like `aws_codepipeline_get_pipeline` (retrieves specific pipeline details) or `aws_codepipeline_list_pipeline_executions` (lists runs, not pipeline definitions).

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance provided on when to use this listing tool versus the `get_pipeline` sibling for fetching specific pipeline details, or when pagination (`max_results`) is necessary. No mention of typical use cases or prerequisites.

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