Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AWS MCP Server

AWS MCP Server

by marcelobrake
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

aws_redshift_describe_clusters

Retrieve detailed information about AWS Redshift clusters, including configuration, status, and endpoints, for monitoring and management purposes.

Instructions

List Redshift clusters with their configuration, status, and endpoint.

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_redshift_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_identifierNoSpecific cluster identifier (optional — returns all if omitted)
max_recordsNoMaximum clusters to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, description carries burden of disclosing read-only nature, which 'List' implies but does not explicitly confirm as safe. Mentions return fields (config, status, endpoint) but omits pagination, error handling (e.g., no clusters), or authentication requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb, zero waste. Efficiently conveys operation, target resource, and return payload categories.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a listing operation with complete schema coverage, mentioning key return fields compensates somewhat for missing output schema. However, lacks behavioral context (safety, pagination) that would be expected given zero annotations.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond schema (e.g., does not clarify that omitting cluster_identifier returns all clusters, though schema covers this).

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 'Redshift clusters', and previews return data (configuration, status, endpoint). Distinguishes from sibling parameter/snapshot tools implicitly via resource name, though lacks explicit cross-tool guidance.

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 on when to use versus siblings (describe_cluster_parameters, describe_cluster_snapshots) or when to filter by cluster_identifier versus listing all. No mention of pagination behavior implied by max_records parameter.

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