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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Failover Readiness

aws_failover_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether an ElastiCache replication group would survive a primary failure by auditing Multi-AZ status, replica placement, shard coverage, and recovery risk.

Instructions

Would a primary failure be survived? Findings first: failover or Multi-AZ off, shards without replicas, replicas in the primary's AZ, uneven or unavailable replicas, single-node group, recovery-risk level.

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": {
      "replication_group_id": "<replication_group_id>"
    },
    "name": "aws_failover_readiness"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoAWS region; defaults to AWS_REGION
replication_group_idYesReplicationGroupId to check

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the assessment evaluates (replication topology, AZ placement, replica health) and that it reports a recovery-risk level, but it says nothing about scoring thresholds or whether AWS credentials/region resolution failures are surfaced.

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 lead question is front-loaded and the findings list is compressed into a single telegraphic sentence with no filler. The fragmentary list format is efficient, though the abrupt style slightly reduces readability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still missing for a readiness-assessment tool is any statement of what the risk levels mean or when to prefer this over the global-datastore and scale readiness siblings, leaving a moderate gap.

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 both region and replication_group_id documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect semantics ('single-node group', 'shards') that imply the scope is an ElastiCache replication group, but gives no extra detail on the required identifier or region defaulting behavior.

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 framing question 'Would a primary failure be survived?' plus the enumerated findings (Multi-AZ off, shards without replicas, replicas in the primary's AZ, single-node group) makes clear this assesses failover readiness of a replication group rather than merely listing configuration. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named aws_global_datastore_failover_readiness or aws_scale_readiness siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as the global-datastore readiness variant. Usage is only implied by the framing question, leaving the agent to guess whether this is a pre-change audit or a diagnostic.

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