Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AWS MCP Server

AWS MCP Server

by marcelobrake
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

aws_memorydb_describe_clusters

Retrieve configuration and status details for AWS MemoryDB Redis clusters to monitor performance and manage resources.

Instructions

Describe MemoryDB for Redis clusters.

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_memorydb_describe_clusters"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It does not indicate read-only safety, pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), default result limits, or what constitutes a valid cluster name format.

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?

Extremely concise at four words with no redundancy. However, the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, AWS service interaction), leaving little structural context for the agent.

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 4-parameter AWS service tool lacking both annotations and output schema. The description omits return value structure, authentication requirements, and error conditions that the agent needs to invoke the tool effectively.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear definitions for profile, region, cluster_name, and max_results. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the high schema coverage meets the baseline expectation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the verb (Describe) and resource (MemoryDB for Redis clusters), identifying the specific AWS service. However, it lacks scope clarification—whether it retrieves one cluster or many, or what specific attributes are returned—leaving ambiguity given the optional cluster_name parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this versus the sibling tool aws_memorydb_describe_snapshots, or when to apply filtering via cluster_name versus retrieving all clusters. No prerequisites (AWS credentials, permissions) are mentioned.

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