Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AWS MCP Server

AWS MCP Server

by marcelobrake
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

aws_lakeformation_list_resources

List all resources registered with AWS Lake Formation to manage data access controls and permissions across your data lake.

Instructions

List resources registered with Lake Formation.

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_lakeformation_list_resources"
  }
}

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 resources to return

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, requiring the description to disclose behavioral traits. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, explain pagination behavior (e.g., NextToken handling), or document required IAM permissions (lakeformation:ListResources).

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 sentence is efficiently front-loaded with no redundant words. However, it is undersized given the lack of annotations and output schema, requiring additional descriptive content to be truly complete.

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?

Inadequate for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. Fails to explain what specific resource information is returned, how pagination works beyond the max_results parameter, or what constitutes a 'resource' in the Lake Formation context (registered S3 locations).

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%; all three parameters (profile, region, max_results) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, syntax constraints, or cross-parameter relationships, warranting the 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?

States specific verb (List) and resource domain (Lake Formation registered resources). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_lakeformation_list_permissions via the object 'resources' versus 'permissions', though it omits specifying that 'resources' refers to data lake locations/S3 paths.

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 siblings like aws_lakeformation_get_data_lake_settings, nor does it explain when to specify profile/region overrides or how to handle pagination with max_results.

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