Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AWS MCP Server

AWS MCP Server

by marcelobrake
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

aws_ecr_get_lifecycle_policy

Retrieve the lifecycle policy for an Amazon ECR repository to manage image retention rules and optimize storage costs.

Instructions

Get the lifecycle policy for an ECR repository.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repository_name": "<repository_name>"
    },
    "name": "aws_ecr_get_lifecycle_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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, and description fails to disclose read-only nature, error conditions (e.g., repository not found, no policy configured), or required AWS permissions. 'Get' implies read-only but does not confirm safety.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Appropriately concise, though arguably too brief given the lack of output schema and annotations that necessitate more descriptive coverage.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and being an AWS integration, the description should specify the return format, error behaviors, and credential requirements. Single sentence insufficient for this complexity level.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. Description adds no supplemental parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting baseline score.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('lifecycle policy') with scope ('ECR repository'). Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling aws_ecr_describe_repositories, though the tool name makes the distinction clear.

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 like aws_ecr_describe_repositories, nor any prerequisites (e.g., repository must exist).

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