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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Events

aws_events
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and prioritize ElastiCache events by severity and age to surface failover, failure, reboot, replacement, and maintenance findings, with counts by source and recent event details.

Instructions

DescribeEvents, findings first: failover/failure critical, replacement/reboot/maintenance warning, worst then newest; counts per source and the 100 newest events (truncated if more). Invalid source_type is refused.

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_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hoursNo
regionNoAWS region; defaults to AWS_REGION
source_typeNocache-cluster, cache-parameter-group, cache-security-group, cache-subnet-group, replication-group, serverless-cache, user, user-group
source_identifierNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: severity tiers, worst-then-newest ordering, a 100-event cap with a `truncated` flag, per-source counts, and rejection of invalid source_type. That is a genuine value-add, but the ordering/truncation details are arguably result-shape facts that the output schema may already carry.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the semicolon structure maps cleanly to ordering rules, return size, and validation. Opening with the operation name is mildly redundant but costs almost nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the default 24-hour window and 336-hour cap on `hours` are invisible in the description, and for an events tool the time window is essential context; `source_identifier` is likewise unaddressed.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the schema documents region and source_type, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces source_type validation ('invalid source_type is refused'), but says nothing about the `hours` window (default 24, max 336) or `source_identifier`, leaving those undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (DescribeEvents) and resource (events), and the severity/recency ordering makes the tool's output shape concrete. It does not name or contrast with siblings like aws_maintenance or node_latency_events, 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 is implied by the severity ranking ('failover/failure critical, replacement/reboot/maintenance warning'), which signals triage intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent whether to reach for aws_maintenance or aws_service_updates instead.

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