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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Reserved Nodes

aws_reserved_nodes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Review reserved ElastiCache nodes to find reservations expiring in 30/90 days, reservations matching no node, and nodes without coverage, so you can avoid on-demand billing.

Instructions

DescribeReservedCacheNodes plus running nodes, findings first: reservations expiring in 30/90 days, reservations matching no node, nodes no reservation covers (node-hours billed on demand). All ELASTICACHE_REGIONS unless region.

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_reserved_nodes"
  }
}

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing output ordering ('findings first') and the cost consequence of uncovered nodes ('node-hours billed on demand'). It does not mention response size, pagination, or latency from fanning out across regions.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with the global scoping rule appended last by the parameter it modifies. No filler, though the telegraphic fragments ('nodes no reservation covers') trade a little readability for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and a single optional parameter, the description carries exactly the burden it needs to: what is compared, what the findings are, how they are ordered, and how region scope works. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: omitting `region` means scanning all ELASTICACHE_REGIONS, whereas the schema property only says it defaults to AWS_REGION — the description is what tells the agent the omission triggers a multi-region sweep. That said, the two statements are in mild tension and the description does not resolve which one governs.

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 concrete verb+resource ('DescribeReservedCacheNodes plus running nodes') and enumerates the finding types it surfaces (expiring in 30/90 days, unmatched reservations, uncovered nodes). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'aws_reserved_offerings', so the reader must infer the offerings-vs-owned-reservations split from names alone.

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 categories — this is the coverage/expiry audit tool — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The 30/90-day windows imply a cost-review context without saying so.

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