AWS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully discloses what data is retrieved (status, input, output), acting as a surrogate for the missing output schema. However, it omits explicit safety information (read-only nature), permission requirements, or AWS API constraints that would aid invocation planning.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb and apportions exactly three nouns (status, input, output) to describe the return payload. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or tautology.

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?

Given 100% input schema coverage and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by enumerating the conceptual return values (status, input, output). It adequately covers the tool's purpose for a read-only AWS describe operation, though explicit mention of read-only safety or IAM permission hints would elevate it to a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (profile, region, execution_arn) fully documented. The description mentions 'specific Step Functions execution' which loosely maps to the execution_arn parameter, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema definitions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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?

The description provides a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('Step Functions execution'), and specifies the scope of data returned ('status, input, and output'). The word 'specific' effectively distinguishes this from sibling list operations like aws_sfn_list_executions, and the enumerated return values distinguish it from aws_sfn_get_execution_history which returns event history rather than current status/IO.

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?

The description implies usage by specifying what data is returned (status, input, output), helping the agent infer when to use this versus execution history tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over aws_sfn_get_execution_history or prerequisites like needing an execution ARN from a prior list operation.

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