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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Reader Endpoint Audit

aws_reader_endpoint_audit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit an ElastiCache replication group to determine whether replicas can serve reads by checking reader endpoint availability, shard replica count, AZ placement, and replication lag.

Instructions

Are replicas usable for reads? Findings first: clients likely on the primary endpoint, no reader endpoint, single-replica shards, replicas in the primary's AZ, high ReplicationLag.

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_reader_endpoint_audit"
  }
}

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the finding categories the audit surfaces (primary-endpoint bias, missing reader endpoint, AZ co-location, high ReplicationLag), but it never states thresholds, permissions required, or costs, and the phrase "high ReplicationLag" is left unquantified.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the question the tool answers, with no filler. The colon-separated findings list is a little telegraphic and some fragments ("single-replica shards") require the reader to infer meaning, but nothing is wasted.

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 annotations covering safety, the description only needs to say what the audit checks, which it does through the findings list. Missing only are guidance on when to prefer this over adjacent audits and any note on what a clean result versus a flagged result implies.

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% for both parameters (region defaulting to AWS_REGION, and replication_group_id), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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 frames a specific question ("Are replicas usable for reads?") and enumerates the concrete conditions the audit detects: no reader endpoint, single-replica shards, replicas in the primary's AZ, high ReplicationLag. That is concrete enough to separate it from a general metrics or failover audit, even though no sibling tool is named.

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 only implied by the question form — an agent can infer it is for checking read-scaling/endpoint hygiene, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to related tools such as failover-readiness or shard-balance audits. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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