AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Successfully adds aggregation context (findings sourced from multiple AWS security services), but omits critical behavioral details like pagination behavior, API limits, or explicit read-only classification.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core operation, second sentence adds valuable aggregation context without redundancy.

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?

Reasonably complete given the 100% schema coverage, but gaps remain: no output schema is provided and the description doesn't explain return values or pagination (relevant given max_results parameter), nor does it clarify relationship to the findings_summary sibling.

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 has 100% description coverage with detailed examples (e.g., ASFF filter structure). Description mentions 'optional filters' generally but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents, meeting baseline expectations for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'Security Hub findings'. The aggregation mention ('from GuardDuty, Inspector, Macie...') effectively distinguishes from service-specific siblings like aws_guardduty_get_findings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from aws_securityhub_get_findings_summary.

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?

Provides implied usage guidance through the aggregation concept (suggests using for consolidated cross-service findings), but lacks explicit when/when-not recommendations or named alternatives.

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