Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-elasticache-ops

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Alarms

aws_alarms
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check ElastiCache CloudWatch alarm coverage to surface ALARM, INSUFFICIENT_DATA, disabled actions, and missing core-metric alarms across groups, clusters, and serverless caches.

Instructions

CloudWatch alarm coverage. Findings first: alarms in ALARM, INSUFFICIENT_DATA or with actions disabled, members with no alarm on core metrics (CPU, memory, evictions, lag, connections, swap). partial=true if denied. No group id covers ELASTICACHE_REGIONS.

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_alarms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoAWS region; defaults to AWS_REGION
replication_group_idNoLimit to one replication group; omit to check every group, cluster and serverless cache

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, yet the description still adds real behavior: which conditions count as findings (ALARM, INSUFFICIENT_DATA, actions disabled, missing alarms on named core metrics), findings-first ordering, and graceful degradation via partial=true when permissions are denied. The degradation note is compressed to a fragment and does not say what else is still returned when partial.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Very short and front-loaded, with the purpose first and the finding criteria second; no sentence is filler. However, the telegraphic fragment style ("partial=true if denied", "No group id covers ELASTICACHE_REGIONS") costs readability and forces the reader to reconstruct the grammar.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given rich annotations, 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, finding criteria, degradation and regional scope adequately. The remaining gap is routing guidance: nothing tells an agent when to pick this over the adjacent metrics or triage tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitting replication_group_id scopes coverage to ELASTICACHE_REGIONS rather than all AWS regions. That resolves real ambiguity an agent would otherwise have about the null default.

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?

"CloudWatch alarm coverage" plus the enumerated finding types makes clear this audits alarm existence and state across cache members, which distinguishes it from aws_metrics (raw metrics) and aws_triage. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement and never names a sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied (an audit that returns findings first, with an optional replication-group filter) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to aws_metrics or aws_triage. The "omit to check every group" behavior lives in the schema, not the description.

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