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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Cost Overview

aws_cost_overview
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyzes ElastiCache fleet cost and right-sizing, flagging idle groups, oversized nodes with smaller options, unused replicas, old snapshots, and uncapped serverless; optional region filter.

Instructions

Fleet cost and right-sizing, findings first: node type and count, reserved coverage, peak memory/CPU per group and serverless cache. Flags idle groups, oversized nodes (names the smaller node type), idle replicas, on-demand and non-Graviton nodes, old snapshots, uncapped serverless. All ELASTICACHE_REGIONS unless region.

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_cost_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoAWS region; defaults to AWS_REGION

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the output shape ('findings first'), the exact classes of findings produced, and that oversized-node findings name the recommended smaller node type. It does not mention rate limits or cross-account scope, but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

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?

The finding categories are front-loaded and every clause carries information; nothing is filler. The dense comma-spliced list of flagged conditions is harder to scan than a short enumerated structure would be, but the content density justifies the length.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope, aggregation (per group), and finding categories. The main residual gap is the conflicting default-region behavior, which is the one thing an agent must resolve before calling it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single region parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does attempt to add meaning by saying scope is 'All ELASTICACHE_REGIONS unless `region`', but this sits in tension with the schema's stated default of AWS_REGION, leaving the effective default ambiguous rather than clarified.

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?

The description names a specific analysis ('Fleet cost and right-sizing') over a specific resource (ElastiCache nodes, serverless caches, snapshots), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as aws_reserved_nodes or aws_triage, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 by the cost/right-sizing framing and the finding list (idle groups, oversized nodes, non-Graviton). There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative for narrower questions like reserved coverage or snapshot age, which have dedicated siblings. The region scoping sentence is the only operational guidance.

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