AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, and description carries minimal burden. Does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), or error conditions (e.g., non-existent cluster). 'Managed' hints at AWS-specific behavior excluding self-managed nodes, but lacks operational transparency.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core purpose without redundancy. Appropriately front-loaded with action verb. Severely underweight for the tool's complexity but wastes no words.

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?

Adequate for a simple list operation with 100% parameter schema coverage. However, given zero annotations and no output schema, description omits behavioral context (pagination, permissions, managed vs self-managed distinction) that would complete the operational picture.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds no parameter-specific context beyond schema, but schema sufficiently documents profile, region, cluster_name, and max_results meanings.

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?

Clear verb 'List' and specific resource 'managed node groups' scoped to 'EKS cluster'. Distinguishes from siblings implicitly via resource naming (vs fargate_profiles, vs describe_nodegroup for single item), though explicit differentiation is absent.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus aws_eks_describe_nodegroup (single detail) or aws_eks_list_clusters. No mention of prerequisites like cluster existence or IAM permissions.

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