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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Parameter Groups

aws_parameter_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit ElastiCache parameter groups against running clusters to find unused custom groups, family mismatches, and risky user-set Redis/Valkey settings.

Instructions

DescribeCacheParameterGroups joined with running clusters: unused custom groups, family mismatch, and risky Source=user settings (noeviction, timeout, keepalive, reserved-memory, lazyfree, slowlog).

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_parameter_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoAWS region; defaults to AWS_REGION
audit_settingsNoAlso flag risky user-set values in custom groups

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, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral detail by enumerating which Redis settings count as risky (noeviction, timeout, keepalive, reserved-memory, lazyfree, slowlog) and stating that findings are scoped to Source=user overrides and cross-referenced with running clusters. It does not describe cost, pagination, or output shape, but the output schema covers returns.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the source API and then the findings, with zero filler. It is slightly compressed to the point of being a fragment, but every clause carries information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; with only two optional params, the description's coverage of what is checked and how findings are derived is nearly sufficient. What 'unused' means operationally and whether a cluster scope can be narrowed are the only real gaps.

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% with both parameters documented, so the schema carries the load and 3 is the baseline. The description adds only indirect meaning — the risky-setting list hints at what audit_settings toggles — without explaining the region default or the exact effect of setting audit_settings=false.

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?

Names the underlying operation (DescribeCacheParameterGroups) and the exact enrichment — joining with running clusters — plus the three finding categories it surfaces (unused custom groups, family mismatch, risky Source=user settings). This is specific verb+resource and clearly distinct in substance from a generic parameter lookup, though it never names a sibling tool to contrast with.

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 finding types (auditing parameter groups for waste and risk), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement nor any routing against aws_parameters or aws_parameter_drift, which occupy adjacent territory. An agent must infer that this is the audit-oriented tool rather than the raw listing tool.

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