AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only access, the description does not confirm this is non-destructive, disclose potential costs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid queue URL), or required IAM permissions.

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 sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded action verb followed by resource and specific examples. Every element earns its place—the examples are necessary to clarify what 'attributes' encompasses.

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% schema coverage and a simple read operation, the description adequately covers what data is retrieved through specific examples. It lacks return format specification (no output schema present), but the attribute examples sufficiently indicate response content for this standard AWS getter pattern.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. However, the description adds value by illuminating the 'attribute_names' parameter through concrete examples (message count, delay, visibility timeout, dead-letter config, ARN), which helps understand what valid attribute values look like beyond the schema's generic 'Attributes to retrieve' description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'SQS queue attributes' and distinguishes from siblings (aws_sqs_send_message, aws_sqs_receive_message, aws_sqs_purge_queue) by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than message operations. The colon-separated examples (message count, delay, visibility timeout, dead-letter config, ARN) provide concrete specificity.

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 through concrete examples of when you need queue configuration data (checking message counts, visibility timeouts), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other SQS operations or prerequisites like IAM permissions.

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