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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Engine Versions

aws_engine_versions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists available ElastiCache engine versions with parameter group families and upgrade targets by engine/region, including Valkey targets for Redis OSS.

Instructions

DescribeCacheEngineVersions: available versions with parameter group family, plus upgrade targets (latest minor of each major; latest Valkey when asking about Redis OSS).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "engine": "<engine>"
    },
    "name": "aws_engine_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
engineYesCache engine
regionNoAWS region; defaults to AWS_REGION
version_prefixNoOnly versions starting with this, e.g. '7.')

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: upgrade targets are derived as the latest minor per major, and a Redis OSS query returns the latest Valkey instead — response-shaping details an agent could not guess. It does not mention pagination or filtering behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation name and then the two payload components. The trailing parenthetical is dense but earns its place by qualifying what 'upgrade targets' means. No filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (3 params, one enum, output schema present), and the description covers purpose and return semantics adequately. The gap is navigational: with 30+ aws_* siblings, an agent has no guidance on when this lookup is the right call versus aws_upgrade_plan or aws_parameter_groups.

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 description coverage is 100%, with engine enum and a version_prefix example ('7.') already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond structured fields; its extra detail ('parameter group family', 'upgrade targets') describes returned content rather than inputs.

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 the underlying operation (DescribeCacheEngineVersions) and specifies what is returned: available versions with parameter group family plus upgrade targets. That is a concrete verb+resource statement an agent can act on. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like aws_upgrade_plan or aws_parameter_groups, which also deal with versions/families.

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 is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the lookup for which engine versions exist before planning an upgrade. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no routing to aws_upgrade_plan for the actual upgrade planning step, which is the most likely confusion point.

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