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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Global Datastore Failover Readiness

aws_global_datastore_failover_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess ElastiCache global datastore failover readiness by reporting per-datastore status, blocking reasons, primary and secondary regions, node types, engine versions, and max replication lag.

Instructions

Global datastore failover readiness from DescribeGlobalReplicationGroups and GlobalDatastoreReplicationLag. Findings first, then per datastore: readiness (blocked, attention, ready), reasons, primary region, and each secondary's status, node type, engine version and max replication lag.

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_global_datastore_failover_readiness"
  }
}

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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the report shape: findings first, then per-datastore readiness classification, reasons, primary region, and secondary status/node type/engine version/max replication lag. It does not mention throttling or data freshness, so it stops short of 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the data sources and then the output shape; no filler. The second sentence is dense but every clause (readiness states, reasons, region, secondary attributes) maps to real report content.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to orient the agent, and it does so by naming the source APIs and the readiness categories. The main residual gap is the absence of any use-this-not-that guidance against the near-identically named aws_failover_readiness sibling.

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?

There is a single optional region parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states the AWS_REGION default and the region-name pattern. The description adds nothing about region behavior, which is acceptable at this coverage level but no better than baseline.

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 resource and outcome: global datastore failover readiness, plus the two underlying APIs (DescribeGlobalReplicationGroups, GlobalDatastoreReplicationLag) it aggregates. An agent can tell this is a per-datastore readiness assessment, though it never contrasts itself with the similarly named sibling aws_failover_readiness, so the differentiation is left to the reader.

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 name and the readiness vocabulary (blocked/attention/ready), but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus aws_failover_readiness or aws_global_replication_groups. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given, so selection depends on inference from the name.

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