AWS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the grouping behavior (by severity with specific levels), but omits read-only safety, idempotency, or AWS API rate limit considerations. No mention of what happens if no findings exist.

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, dense sentence (12 words). Front-loaded with verb 'Get'. Every word earns its place—'count summary' distinguishes from raw findings, and severity levels preview the output structure without verbosity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately hints at return structure by listing severity buckets. Lacks mention that all parameters are optional (implied by schema) or that AWS credentials are required.

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% coverage with clear descriptions for all 3 parameters (profile, region, record_state). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, meeting the baseline 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?

Excellent specificity: states exact action (Get), resource (Security Hub findings), and aggregation method (count summary by severity). Distinguishes from sibling aws_securityhub_get_findings (which returns individual findings) by emphasizing 'count 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?

No guidance on when to use this summary view versus the detailed aws_securityhub_get_findings. No mention of when to filter by ACTIVE vs ARCHIVED record_state, or prerequisites like Security Hub being enabled in the account.

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